User talk:Irpen/archived closed issues 02

Hotel Ukrayina
I started on it Here nothing much yet, but the link is 100% ace with all those pre-1973 photos. Would give a helping hand?--Kuban Cossack 19:45, 5 April 2006 (UTC)
 * I will, but I can't promise a definite time frame. Too much work these days. But thanks! --Irpen 19:46, 5 April 2006 (UTC)

SuperDeng
Look at his contributions. What you will see is a POV warrior who has been blocked before for his behavior under this user name and also as DengXiaoPing. So this isn't new. Deng's a user who assumes the worst in users, who thinks he is correct 100% of the time despite evidence to the contrary and who uses personal attacks to try to get his way. He's very good at calling people "liars" and telling them that their views are "irrelevant" and he often says "of course you are wrong" to people who disagrees with. If you would like specific diffs, I can get them for you. He has spent the last few days virtually stalking User:Kurt Leyman and reversing virtually every edit made. And as I said, he's been blocked for this behavior before, so this is hardly an isolated incident. I stand by my block. --Woohookitty(cat scratches) 03:00, 7 April 2006 (UTC)


 * Thanks for your response. I see now that you have quite strict standards in defining what constitutes a PA, and how severe it has to be to become a blockable offence. In the future, if I see POV-pushers who resort to personal attacks, I will know who to contact. I was sick and tired because of some fellows here. I thought that once I don't want to spend time compiling RfC and ArbCom cases, I have to accept that there is little I can do about some some uncivil and abusive POV-pushers short of starting to write-up RfC's using the time I would rather spend writing articles.


 * Now I know that I should have contacted you. I sure will from now on. Regards, --Irpen 03:30, 7 April 2006 (UTC)


 * No problem. :) Yeah I apologize for the block log. I tried to give the most recent example of his behavior instead of the most representative. --Woohookitty(cat scratches) 04:07, 7 April 2006 (UTC)

Insidious games at Soviet partisan
Irpen, what freacking games are you playing in??? What the hell does this nasty comment mean? And where is fucking logic in your edits to that article? You kept (although biased) my important thesises, but reverted other non-political issues like terms in the lead. So what are you trying to do? Promote some point or just provoke a conflict?

Discuss issues before changing them in the article. Or you'll get a real war till the last drop of my blood you mother fucker!!!AlexPU 07:38, 1 May 2006 (UTC)

Wow
That's the most amazing message I've ever seen at my talk and I've seen a lot. I regret my first thought to remove it. Better yet, I will keep it. Let it shine! Thanks, Alex! --Irpen 07:50, 1 May 2006 (UTC)

I figured I place links here to the past messages from the same contributor left at my talk that are now in archives and not in the plain view: That's it for now. --Irpen 08:49, 1 May 2006 (UTC)
 * November, 2005: original, "modified"
 * March 2005 a nice welcoming me to Wiki

Re: Your request of evaluation
Hi. Yesterday you requested my evaluation of your behaviour, and here it is:
 * you ARE "the shame" in Wikipedia
 * but you can't be "a shame on the Ukrainian community" since you don't belong to such

In case if you need assessment of your activities, just use a special purpose register here. AlexPU 06:45, 2 May 2006 (UTC)


 * I am moving your entry to a desginated section I specifically marked for you at my talk. I don't remember requesting your opinion of myself since you made it public at your disgusting talk page. Since you expressed it, I stopped caring. If you keep trolling, you visit here will be short. If you somehow undergo a major transformation and manage to stay, this would be just fine as far as I am conserned. I don't feel good though being a subject of your obsession. Not that I care myself, but it is rather unhealthy for your own sake. --Irpen 07:04, 2 May 2006 (UTC)

Guys, stop it. Irpen, don't call his talk page "disgusting". Alex's user page is one of the cleverest I've seen, better than yours. Irpen, don't build a wall. KPbIC 07:29, 2 May 2006 (UTC)
 * His user talk is an attack page as well as most of his entries into the article's and personal talks. I have a wall between myself and people with a filthy mouth. There is nothing to build. When he makes edits or suggestions outside of his crusade venue, I will respond disregarding his past offences, as I did just today at talk:Viktor Yushchenko. When he just plainly trolls, he is just banging his head against the wall. I have enough patience to stand through far worse things than his bad mouth. --Irpen 07:38, 2 May 2006 (UTC)


 * No, you don't have a wall between yourself "and people with a filthy mouth". If you were you would have treated Kuban Kazak differently.
 * You are trying to build a wall with AlexPU and came to the point at which you release yourself from any productive articles' discuss with AlexPU. That would be a wrong point. KPbIC 07:57, 2 May 2006 (UTC)

Dear 134, your comparison of AlexPU with Kuban kazak is totally improper because: I don't remember seeing you criticizing AlexPU on the issues (from which I infer that you view him uncivil but with the right POV). At the same time I gad frequent disagreements with Kazak (and Ghirla) on the article's talk pages. Examples are abundant. That said, I do treat each edit from any editor even guilty of whatever trolling in the past based on its own merit. Examples are abundant but if you doubt that, let me know and I will give you diffs. Best, --Irpen 01:31, 4 May 2006 (UTC)
 * I did chastise KK rather strongly after his spats of incivility (which apparently worked, btw) and if he keeps being uncivil Ezhiki will block him sooner than any other admin and if he gets blocked, I would never interfere (this has been discussed)
 * Kazak, compared to AlexPU is a teacher in the good manners school.
 * Most of Kazak's contributions at talk pages are civil while almost all talk entries by AlexPU range between incivil and horrific (like the one above that beats all the records).
 * AlexPU definitely has some specific knowledge, and he is a journalist, so it would valuable for the project if he is around. He basically created the article on Rudnev, adding that story on Kovpak/Rudnev conflict, which probably the other had no idea of, and on which I actually put “fact” template, as without a reference the story sounds questionable. Also, speaking on who should be a teacher for whom, it seems that AlexPU has got your civility message pretty fast. But we will see… KPbIC 20:14, 5 May 2006 (UTC)

AlexPU claims that he is a journalist but his Rudniev article is a bunch of unreferenced speculations and conspiracy theories. It also included false claims, like his beeing not a communist. I am writing a replacement now. I would love to see the material restored in the referenced form. He got no message on the civilty whatsoever. I've been here longer than you and I've seen this editor. That he simply makes no edits now is the reason why we don't see his diatribes. As soon as he is back, they will resume. Fortunately, Wikipedia has got much less tolerant to such behavior lately. More often than not we see instant blocks of some fellows without even an ArbCom. If he returns as a civil editor, that would be a different story. --Irpen 20:21, 5 May 2006 (UTC)

Prometheism 2
Sorry I haven't been able to work on the article! If you need help, John Kenney, Slrubenstein, Jtdirl, and Rjensen are also historians and/or social scientists. 172 | Talk 06:00, 8 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Thanks! Will contact them. --Irpen 06:03, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

Hotel Ukrayina update
Look what I found yesterday Йопт, how was it possible to ruin such a design? --Kuban Cossack 16:17, 9 May 2006 (UTC) You SHOULD archive a good half you your page

Могила
Ответ тут.&mdash;Ëzhiki (ërinacëus amurënsis) • (yo?); 15:22, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

Notice of RfC
A request for comment concerning your conduct is filled.--AndriyK 16:56, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

Edit warring
Please do not engage in edit warring when in conflict with other editors, as you have been doing today and recently. Take a look at your recent edits at, , ,. Edit warring is a poor way to solve disputes. Actually, it inflames them. All of those instances of recent edit warring are unacceptable, as well as the ones I haven't mentioned. Please use WP:DR: go to mediation or RFC. As you know, persistent edit warring may lead to blocks. Dmcdevit·t 07:09, 24 June 2006 (UTC)

Dispute tag at Ukrainization
Yesterday, you deleted the dispute tag twice from the article Uktainization. I would like to point you out that the dispute concerning this article has not been resolved yet. There is a discussion at the talk. Please note, that blanking dispute tag may be qualified as WP:Vandalism.--Mbuk 21:28, 5 July 2006 (UTC)
 * The tag was placed improperly contrary to the sources cited in the article and its talk. I added more source. The tag was placed by the user who uses tag-trolling as the easy way to push a POV in the lack of the desire to write anything at all. You are making a big mistake by allowing yourself to be blindly lead by AndriyK whose remaining tenure at WP will likely be short despite my efforts to turn his efforts into anything creative. --Irpen 00:00, 6 July 2006 (UTC)
 * You cited the sources after several cycles of tag removal. The tag was placed properly, because the sources were not cited at the time when the tag was reinserted.--Mbuk 20:18, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

You are making a false statement, again simply wasting the time of yourself and more importantly of others. Other sources were cited earlier at the talk page, e.g. here. I do not intend to engage into such fruitless discussion with you anymore since I more and more get to conclusion that you are either not reading other people's entries or simply act in bad faith in order just to make a point. That is until I see any change in your behavior which is until now of the blind supporter of a very problematic user. Your pointless pestering would either be unanswered or removed, when you enter it at user talk page. So, better leave it at the article's talk so that other people would see its merit on their own in the context of the entire talk page. If you enter anything substantial, you will og course get a response. --Irpen 21:33, 6 July 2006 (UTC)


 * I've reread the talk. None of the sources cited there define Ukrainization as you did in the article. It looks like it you Original Research. Therefore, tag insertion was (and still is) justified.
 * Please avoid personal attacks and foccuse your efforts on the discussed issue. Thanks.--Mbuk 23:07, 8 July 2006 (UTC)

Please seize your perpetual harassment. I never personally attacked anyone. Your pestering is a waste of time. --Irpen 04:22, 9 July 2006 (UTC)


 * I am not pestering. I pointed out a real OR problem at Ukrainization.--Mbuk 08:41, 9 July 2006 (UTC)

No, you accused me in personal attack unjustly while there were none and you know it. Similarly to you going around talk pages accusing others instead of engaging into any productive activity. Please do not expect that people will be wasting time to feed you. --Irpen 18:57, 9 July 2006 (UTC)


 * Please reread WP:NPA.--Mbuk 21:07, 9 July 2006 (UTC)


 * God! Irpen, I admire your patience. --Tēlex 21:07, 9 July 2006 (UTC)

Edit warring 2
Irpen, I've warned you before, and you are not a new user, so I am disappointed to see you continuing to engage in edit warring with AndriyK and others at Ukrainization. ,, , , , and are all recent reverts, mostly regarding the tags. I don't care the reason, edit warring is never acceptable or appropriate; edit warring never improves a conflict, but always makes it worse; the proper response to a content dispute is talk page discussion and dispute resolution, and no edit warring. As the article has already been protected before, and you are not a new editor, and you've even been participating in the discussions about edit warring, so a warning would be pointless, I'm giving you and the rest of the edit warriors there a 24 hour block to cool down. Dmcdevit·t 04:18, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

Dmcdevit, I am not going to loose my sleep over this first block of me in my long time of participation in this project and countless articles I created, wrote from scratch or extensively edited. But in case you are interested to see my response, here is one. To start with, please take a look at this thread at WP:AN for some ideas many users found interesting. Now, let's study your list of edits that you think shows I was revert warring. In the chronological order:


 * 1) This "recent" edit is actually from a week ago. It is well explained at talk and in the summary. Basically, the user, who does nothing at WP but tagging the article others wrote, tagged just one more without any explanation at talk. I responded with the message that tags cannot be used without explanations, since they point to the dispute at talk while there there was none. Note, again, that this was an edit 1 week ago. How recent is that?
 * 2) This edit (also from three (!) days ago, also a noteworthy detail) was not a "revert warring" but a well explained at talk removal of the tag (see also edit summary for that). Moreover, the other change of that edit is also explained at talk and Lysy and I who disagreed about that phrase worked out the solution for this phrase exactly through getting our edits closer to the mutually acceptable version and extensively discussing at talk.
 * 3) Next edit (also from two (!) days ago) was explained at talk. The tag Elonka inserted was simply a wrong tag (factual accuracy dispute), since no one ever disputed a single fact in that article I wrote. It is a very well referenced article. No one disputed facts. If it is POV or OR was disputed, it is the duty of the tagger to provide the proper tag, this was simply an improper tag as was later agreed. At least the article ended up without that tag, even though the tagger reinserted it once later. How is this edit warring?
 * 4) Next edit was part of mine and Lysy work over the version of this particular sentence. This was indeed a  yesterday's edit. Lysy and I were not edit warring but editing the article and discussing it at talk and eventually we arrived to a mutually acceptable compromise, as he later acknowledged at talk
 * 5) This edit is similar to the edit number 4 from two days prior to that. It was explained, the topic was being discussed (there is never a discussion during the sterile revert wars). As I said, others accepted that the "factual accuracy tag" is inapplicable when there is no factual accuracy dispute, only a POV/OR one.
 * 6) Finally, the last edit was a reshufling of the intro, following mine and Lysy's work on it. This was not a revert but an expansion.

Having said that, I leave it to others to you and others to judge whether this was a revert war or the complex article undergoing a painful, but useful growth, that you interrupted by blocking me. I could see that you don't want to look partial and it is tempting to block the other side when you blocked the first one (AndriyK). However, AndriyK did nothing to the article but tagging it in various ways and revert warring (that's most of his WP activity) while Lysy (who actually supported AndriyK's position but acted differently) and myself were actually seeking for a compromise which partially emerged due to our efforts and the rest of it will be coming soon.

You are right that as an experienced user I should know what I am doing. And this was exactly the case. I did not see this as a revert war, but an article developing, perhaps in pains, over the good faith editors disagreement (between Lysy and myself), exaggerated by onlookers who added gasoline to fire by tagging needlessly, reverting and doing nothing else.

If you want me blocked despite this all, fine with me. If, after reading this all, you will take another look at this article's development and see that on my and Lysy's part this was a development rather than an edit war, this would be just as well.

I am not saying that I should not be blocked just because I technically did not violate 3RR. Sometimes less than 3RR amounts for revert warring. I am saying that after a more careful look, you will see that while some participants were revert warring, others were modifying the article and looking for the ways to do so at its talk.

Finally, let me say that I appreciate your desire to keep the hot heads cooler. Articles like this need an outside arbiter who will chastise the disrupting party and, when necessary, use some force to relieve the pressure. If you think that my activity was edit warring rather than editing, so be it. --Irpen 05:16, 12 July 2006 (UTC)
 * I've read all this, I've taken another look at the conflict, and I still respectfully disagree. First, to clear up any misconceptions, I didn't make any of my blocks out of some notion of symmetry in the "sides" of the conflict. I block one and and I get told I'm favoring a side in the dispute, I block two and I'm told I only blocked [insert name here] so I wouldn't look partial. The only resolution is to block the deserving, and that's what I've tried to do. I am convinced that you have been edit warring at that article, particularly over the tags, and you have been edit warring with, AndriyK especially, there for months now. Perhaps you've been caught in the moment, but take a minute to look through the entire history of that article, all the way through 2005, especially the Irpen and AndriyK edits: it's rather startling. It's past when I should have gone to bed by now, and I don't have the stamina for as long of a reply as yours, but you should also read my other responses:  and . A 24 hour block isn't going to prevent you from continuing to help out here, and we do appreciate your contributions, butI feel I need to send a message that all of you need to stay calm when editing in conflict, and use dispute resolution and not edit warring. Dmcdevit·t 06:33, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

Dmcdevit, the 24 hour block is not going to prevent me from contributing. Neither it is going to do anything bad to my life either. Neither I am going to make a big deal out of this. I may have been wrong, too and I have a project at work and housekeeping things that are well behind.

The only reason why I am talking here is that I disagree that I edit warred and deserved a block. I may be wrong at that and I am not trying to make a fuss out of it, or post "unblock" templates or "threaten" the coparticipants with my leaving the project, demand apologies, or doing other silly things. I simply requested your more careful examination of the matter.

In the thread at WP:AN I pointed out to you above, I said basically one thing. Admins should assume that established, experienced and productive users are more likely to know exactly what they are doing and before imposing the block, take an extra minute to check for the context of the events. If the block is still deserved, block them all right. However, with the established users there is likely more to it. I was reverting AndriyK for the one simple reason (and not only at this article but at others too). I demanded that he provided a good-faith explanation if he tags the article he "doesn't like" marring it with this or that tag. Tag requires an explanation at the talk page. He refused to give any explanation or repeated the arguments that were discussed by the community, and backed with sources. Still, I did not revert him too many times because other users were reverting him as well, which just proves that his tags were unwarranted.

As long as he refused to provide an explanation, I maintained that the tag removal was warranted. There is no need for excellent articles to display bad-faith tags. The refusal of the tagger to elaborate as well as AndriyK's past history at Wikipedia was seen by me as a proof that this was indeed bad faith tagging. I try my best to avoid edit warring and always look for the dispute resolution. However, I see reverting of bad faith edits on the par with reverting of simple vandalism. No one can demand dispute resolution with vandals. Bad-faith is a more tricky and borderline case and I am well aware of AGF and other policy guidelines. I've assumed good faith of AndriyK for a very long time. Even during the arbitration I brought against him I did not request a block that ArbCom instituted. I asked for reversal of the dirty moves and a ruling that would ban him from revert warring in the future. His talk page and archive documents my multiple attempts to stretch my hand to him that he spit on many times. Similar, my talk page above and Mbuk's talk page document how I tried with infinite patience, that amazed some onlookers, to talk to that guy Mbuk and in a very friendly way before he exhausted my patience by his persistence in driving endless circles in discussions and acting as AndriyK's revert proxy. That both contributed virtually no content to Wikipedia despite my calls for them to start, just revert warring, tagging lef and right and wikilawyering, is also a sign of a problem

However, these two users continue with their single activity, tagging the articles they happen to "not like" and serving as each other's revert proxies. I warned Mbuk in the past about revert warring here. It didn't work. I hope your warning him just now would work after his intrigue. Whether you decide to keep my block, or agree with me that my actions did not warrant it, I will be around with many more edits. Good night, --Irpen 06:52, 12 July 2006 (UTC)


 * As a matter of fact, I explained the tag . AndriyK did it as well, .--Mbuk 18:56, 12 July 2006 (UTC)
 * I went to bed last night, then to work this morning, and I expected to see a lot more interest in this block by now than it got at Alex's AN listing: WP:AN (which was precisely zero). I recognize this wasn't straitforward, and I was hoping to get more opinions of it be outsiders, but let me make another statement in any case. AndriyK and Mbuk were edit warring. They were quite clearly and quite simply edit warring over the tags. However, I think there was some kind of misunderstanding: I never accused Lysy of edit warring, and while I don't personally prefer single reverts to only discussion when actively collaborating on a developing article, that can be a valid method if done amicably, as it appears was the case here. By extension, I didn't mean to accuse you of edit warring with Lysy. But, AndriyK and Mbuk were edit warring mostly about the tags, and they weren't edit warring with themselves, they were edit warring with you, Telex, and Grafikm. In what has apparently turned out to be the least controversial of my blocks, I blocked AndriyK for a week for his edit warring (which I believe was not vandalism; replacing an article with a penis is vandalism, being obstinate and disruptive is wrong and sanctionable, but a different category from "vandalism"), but this is what I mean when I say pursue dispute respolution: discussion, I'm glad you tried that; mediation has failed; repeated blocked affect no change; then you need to finish it and take it to the last step: arbitration. If I know anything about arbitration (which I do), an arbitration request against AndriyK and Mbuk would get accepted instantly. I don't find anything that you've said about the two (other than calling it vandalism) that I disagree with, so take it to arbitration and get it dealt with. One last thing: "Still, I did not revert him too many times because other users were reverting him as well, which just proves that his tags were unwarranted," this is the problem I think needs addressing. If AndriyK/Mbuk continue to add tags improperly, rather than revert even more than once, the best thing to do is to ask around for any uninvolved editors you know to take a look, ask for help on ANI early on (and get someone like Elonka in), and follow the dispute resolution process I outlined, all the way to arbitration if need be. Reverting over and over again will not solve the problem, especially if it is only one party at fault. Dmcdevit·t 21:10, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

Dmcdevit, I am more than happy you take an interest in these controversies that need to be addressed anyway. So, no grudge on my part. Now to respond, you only confirmed that was I was thinking of doing all along. To take it to another arbitration against those two fellows is the right thing to do despite the giant time waste it would cause, judging from the time I had to waste on AndriyK's previous Arbitration. That previous what seemed an open-and-shut case about dirty tricks, frivolous moves, sterile revert warring, horrific personal attacks and vote fraud with meatpuppets, still took two (!) months for the ArbCom to decide. Note that at that ArbCom case my only request to the Arbiters was to strip AndriyK off the trolling tools. While ArbCom did rule on reversal of all his frivolous page moves and gave him a one months ban to think about his behavior, it did not address the other problem, revert warring. I requested putting him on the revert and PA parole or restrict his "revert quota" to a solid number less than 3RR. This was not done. I hope this will be done next time.

Another reason why I did not take it to ArbCom is that, as I said repeatedly, it is never my intention to have any of my opponents blocked or banned. I want them reformed or supervised, since blocking people is un-wiki.

Now, I never said that what AndriyK and Mbuk were doing here is vandalism. I said that these are bad-faith edits of the users who do mostly trolling in WP. I still attempted to resolve the disputes, despite their bad faith, and to no avail. I said above one thing, which you misunderstood, perhaps because I was not clear. While they were not vandalizing per se, attempting to resolve anything with bad-faith editors is as productive as attempting to resolve anything with vandals.

Finally, I wrote at WP:AN (see this thread) that when Admins deal with established long-time contributors and think of a block, they should study the matter even more thoroughly than in the ordinary cases. The reason is not to give some editors more slack for their past accomplishments but that editors like myself (or Piotrus or Mikka who all found themselves blocked at their own time by the troll's provocation) are more likely to have known what they were doing and chances were, they were doing the right thing. It might have not be so in my particular case. I tried my best but to err is human. That you did not block Mbuk, a fierce edit warrior claiming that he hasn't been warned before, shows that you did not study the matter. My warning him against revert warring is at the very page where you warned him, just several entries above. I simply asked you to study the matter and reconsider. You say you did and you still stand by your block of me. So be it, today was the most productive day at work I had in months.

User Mbuk's tenure at Wiki is characterized by a huge number of entries that are either wikilawyering (Wikipedia space, see e.g. two frivolous RfC he started against myself and against Telex) or driving his opponents nuts with endless talking them in circles while he himself refuses to listen. At the same time, he made only 26 edits (!) in the mainspace of which 14 are frivolous taggings. AndriyK, following his emergence from the block, made a total of ~250 edits in the main space in 6 months of which over a hundred are sterile reverts judging by edit summaries only (probably many more but I just don't want to click on each diff). It is even strange that ArbCom is necessary at all for those fellows to be stopped from what they are doing, too obvious it seems to me. u I am well aware of all venues of the dispute resolution and I actively participate in them all. Of all ways, everything was tried with AndriyK including the Arbitration. It did not help. The reasons why the second arbitration was not filed, were that it is a giant effort that would not allow me to create content while I spend time on it and that I by all means hoped things can be changed without having my opponents blocked.

Perhaps, I was wrong and I indeed made errors and having me blocked along with a troll is the right thing while giving another one only a warning. As I said at WP:AN, I thoroughly support Admins dealing with the abuse on their own thus saving us all the time from compiling the countless RfC's and ArbCom's just increasing the backlog.

I will add more to the discussion with user: Future Perfect at Sunrise at your talk once I can edit, which is going to be soon anyway. --Irpen 22:41, 12 July 2006 (UTC)
 * What Irpen said. Mbuk's and AndriyK's sole activity (judging by their contributions) seems to be tag insertions and reverts on various Ukraine-related pages. If someone wants I can give detailed statistics (the detailed version of what Irpen quotes above). The rest of their edits are basically endless talking and wikilawyering, as we still have to see both of them actually write something. -- Grafikm  (AutoGRAF)  09:15, 13 July 2006 (UTC)


 * I've never commented about any of these issues, but I've been loosely following them from the sidelines. I've seen you guys show a lot of proof when it comes to Mbuk and AndriyK, and you're offering to show more. Great. But it's useless at this point unless you guys follow up with an arbitration request. Dmcdevit already recommended arbitration, I would recommend the same. No point replying to their edits anylonger or reverting anything they do. A WP article won't suffer too much over a week of wrong tagging, so leave them happy and file your request. -- mno 14:25, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

Quick question
Lately I am thinking of creating a series of articles, partly inspired by your contributions to Kielce Pogrom. This would be a disambig page Kiev Pogrom, which would lead to Kiev Pogrom (1881), Kiev Pogrom (1905) and Kiev Pogrom (1945) (I hope that's all of them). The last one is especially interesting, seeing as it occured after the Nazis were defeated (see ). Any thoughts on this would be appreciated. I hope you will have no objections to this, and look forward to your contributions to these articles. Balcer 17:59, 22 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Balcer, how would I possibly object since we all know that those events happened? I actually mentioned some of those sparingly in other articles but never thought of writing a separate article, just did not get to it. Why don't you start those and I will see how I can help. --Irpen 18:26, 22 August 2006 (UTC)
 * I knew you would have no problem about the two older ones, since they are significant historical events, but I wondered what you would think about a separate article for the one that occured in 1945. That event has been rather unknown, and I only found one book (though quite a respectable one) that discusses it.  Is that 1945 pogrom well known in Ukraine? Balcer 18:34, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

Not that I particularly remember reading about this one, but I've read about the problem in general. While the issue of the local collaboration in the Nazi Genocide is reasonably well known, the issue of the frictions that happened soon after the liberation of the territory, while less known, are still covered here and there. I will take a look and see what I can come up with. --Irpen 18:42, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

3RR at Ukrainization
Irpen, I have blocked you for 9 hrs four doing 4 reverts at this page, at 7.02 on 28/8 and 4.46, 5.14 and 6.30 on 29/8, which consisted of removing the tag, and/or rewording the paragraph about Ukrainian languages at "most significant". Please refrain from excessive reverting once this block expires. Thanks, Blnguyen | rant-line 08:04, 29 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Irpen, I'm sorry. I don't agree with your edits (as expressed in the talk), but it has never been my intention to go into edit war about it. I recognize the validity of some of your points, and I'll address the rest. Again, sorry for the mess, which resulted in useless blocks, KPbIC 17:50, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

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

Since you once helped me before, let me help you and explain that the above refers to Erika Steinbach. You were named there: All the best, --Pan Gerwazy 23:52, 18 September 2006 (UTC)


 * To Erika Steinbach ? --Lysytalk 05:05, 19 September 2006 (UTC)


 * You mean it is pure coincidence? OK, I will believe you. And if you believe I believe, doskonale. Sorry, Irpen - looks like I should have put my warning to you under a new header.--Pan Gerwazy 13:44, 20 September 2006 (UTC)


 * Pan Gerwazy, you are always welcome at my talk. Please do post anything you find fit to tell me. It is a pleasure to talk to you. Sorry, there seems to have been some misunderstandings of my involvement (or lack of it) on mine (or others') part. As for the NC I occasionally share my thoughts in that discussion, but even if the final set of rules never crystallize, I note that at the Eastern Front most issues have settled through the reasonable rules of thumb and when discussions erupt, they die out reasonably soon. Stay in touch! --Irpen 17:44, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

Arbitration policy
See Arbitration policy/Procedure for changing this policy. Fred Bauder 01:31, 21 September 2006 (UTC)

Historical demographics of Poland
Since in the past you shown interest in issue of minorities in Poland and such, I think you'd like to look at this article - I have added info and links from all articles mentioning minorities in Poland I could recall.--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus 19:02, 25 September 2006 (UTC)
 * So far it seems to me as just some forked content but I will see what I can do at some point. --Irpen 01:31, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

Talk:Transnistria
Hi Irpen, since you appear in the log of Transnistria as one of the original "top contributors" to the page, you ought to come back from time to time and take a look at evolution of that page and its Talk page. Right now, we are having an informal poll on the inclusion, or not, of some links and we haven't had a lot of input yet from others. Talk:Transnistria If you have the time, please stop by and help the rest of us with your feedback and thoughts. - Mauco 05:50, 26 September 2006 (UTC)
 * I would love to do that. I need some time though to sort out several wiki-issues but I will try to remember. Thanks a lot for alerting me. I can't help but notice how much the discussion pages on these and related issues has improved since earlier times. Cheers, --Irpen 01:32, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

Re:Polish-Soviet War
Irpen, I appreciate our genetlman's agreement about 3RR; nonetheless I am sure I have not broken the rule: feel free to point to me specific edits that would indicate otherwise. As for reverting your hours of work: I did that with heavy heart, but I thought (and still think) that that particular edit contained no new and useful information, but was simply rewording the article into less NPOVed one.--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus 01:03, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

Pies :)
The way I'd do it is this. Pirogov and Pirogovo (disambiguation) should be two separate dabs (Nikolai Pirogov isn't the only notable person by that name; I'll add more on Monday), but interlinked with each other via the "see also" section. Pirogovo proper should definitely redirect to Pyrohiv (note that "(Kiev)" disambiguator is unnecessary, unless there are other entities by the name of "Pyrohiv"), and Pyrohiv should contain a dablink at the top stating that "Pirogovo redirects here; for other uses see Pirogovo (disambiguation)". All Russian villages named "Pirogovo" should be listed at Pirogovo (disambiguation)&mdash;I don't have my master list with me at the moment, but I'll check on Monday to see how many there are. Geo-locations are inherently notable, so they should be listed, although I usually don't list minor villages, adding a statement that "such and such is the name of several rural settlements in Russia" to the disambiguation pages instead. I plan on going through the villages when all districts/cities/towns/urban-type settlements are interlinked and disambiguated.

Let me know if this explanation is too confusing. If you wish, I can implement this scheme on Monday after I check the master list of the Russian settlements.&mdash;Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); 16:33, 30 September 2006 (UTC)

OK, done. Please re-check in case I missed anything. Also, the article on Nikolay Ivanovich Pirogov states that he was born in Pirogovo, Ukraine. I take it's different from Pyrohiv, but could you look into it, please? The "modern name" spelling would need to be corrected at the very least. Thanks!&mdash;Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); 17:54, 2 October 2006 (UTC)


 * Good catch! You never know what you are going to find once you start untangling all those redirects/dabs.  Thanks for fixing it!&mdash;Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); 18:17, 2 October 2006 (UTC)

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

article "Budjak"
As you can easily see, I have not falcified any data. I took the pains to add the numbers from the census. Column 3 reports the number of Moldavians + the number of Romanians, therefore there is a difference of 750 (Romanians). Since all numbers are averaged to hundreds, the result is that some numbers who averaged down before now average up. If you add the numbers raion by raion for Budjak, and for the whole of the Odessa oblast, you will see the match.

Please, do not revert the page. If you list point by point your objections, I would be very glad to discuss every single issue.

Yes, the article is poorly referenced, because I would rather find the more solid references, than web pages, and it would be better to find references in English. If you could help with referencing, it would be fantastic. But even before my edits, it was poorly referenced. I mean we should find appropriate referenced for all the article, not only for the resent additions.

Best wishes —Preceding unsigned comment added by 130.225.20.50 (talk • contribs)

Your edits in the article Vyborg (castle)
1. All the cities in question had a Finnish speaking majority, so the Finnish name is to be used instead of the Swedish. 2. It is clear you do not know the status of Finland in the period... It was autonomous from 1809, when Finland was annexed to Russia, until 1917, Finland's independence. And it had a large autonomy, so it would be very wrong to say "Russian controlled". --Jaakko Sivonen 17:35, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

Copyright paranoia again
In light of your comment in this diff, may I humbly suggest you read again through WP:AGF policy?
 * Balcer, with users who we know for months we do not need to assume anything. It's perfectly appropriate to consider what people do and what people have done before. This is not the first time you force me or others to waste time on clearly harmless image which cannot possibly pose any threat to the foundation. Carnildo does this full-time. Others do it occasionally. -Irpen 03:31, 19 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Yes, it is not the first time. It is the second time.  Obviously, I am a serial abuser in this matter. Balcer 05:21, 19 October 2006 (UTC)
 * The issue at hand is that this activity is disruptive, annoying and damages Wikipedia articles. When user:Fisss was uploading stolen images, I was first to condemn him and requested his block. Here we get vintage images from non-existing state/etnities and there are many. Alex, Ghirla, Grafik and myself had only that much time. Now 500 images are gone. Soviet cosmonaut articles are naked. Check Robert Falk. Take a look at this. (Note, that Konchalovsky died over 50 years ago. Deletionists do not care. Images are now gone.) All gone. And in this mess you come with patronizing template at the user talk and the deleting template at the image page, the image that was saved by mere luck from the recent assault. If you want to help, help. Extra annoyance during this catastrophe is unwelcome. --Irpen 07:52, 19 October 2006 (UTC)

Anyway, it was precisely the carelessness with the copyright rationale for PD-Soviet that led to the deletion of hundreds of images and a massive disruption of Wikipedia. We should try harder to avoid such a disaster in the future. If you are retagging images, especially with fair use tags, please make sure that the rationale for this is provided. This is not just my personal suggestion, but Wikipedia policy. Let's get the copyright status of these images right this time, shall we? Otherwise, they will get deleted eventually. Balcer 02:55, 19 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Balcer, right now we are in a middle of a huge disaster as several hundreds of SovietPD images were deleted on the whim of a few wikilawyers. No rationale to disprove PD-USSR was given and several users are taking infinite pains to sort out what is not deleted yet. It takes all the time we have and additional disrpuption is unwarranted. Second, hitting the talk pages of the established users with patronizing templates created to deal with newbies is on the border of trolling. Third, the source of the image is lost as another helpful user deleted the file (with the source) from commons today (along with 458 other images). You may go and thank user:Drini at his talk page in commons for that. Fourth, nothing prevents you from trying to come up with a fairuse rationale. I prefer to deal with clearly harmless images only when forced to do so by self-appointed copyright police at Wiki. Or by yourself, when you chose to invovle yourself in this policing. Whatever time I have on Wiki which is not spent on writing articles and discussing them at talk pages, is spent by me in search of appropriate and usable images. If you want to help, the least useful is to add to an image a tag that leads to an automatic deletion. Much more helpful is to try to contact the uploaders and interesting parties or, best yet, do something about it yourself as others are busy with writing article about Ukraine. --Irpen 03:31, 19 October 2006 (UTC)


 * It would be great if one could tag images as, but such a tag does not exist.  Fair use is a rather restrictive license, and the fair use tag itself prominently requires that specific rationale be provided.  I was not an uploader of the image and I know too little about it to write such a rationale myself. Anyway, I do not need the abuse from you, so I will not bother with trying to improve the copyright situation of any ex PD-Soviet images any further.  Good luck with trying to retag all post-1954 former PD-Soviet images as fair use without any justification.  We shall see how long they last. Balcer 05:21, 19 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Abuse from me? That's interesting. You hit the talk page of a well respected user:Alex Bakharev with a patronizing newbie template, hit the obviously harmless image with the template that sends it towards deletion, state (falsely) that the image is used at the Portal (it's not), state (falsely) that all images are retagged as fairuse and than complain that it is you who are abused. Who told you that all Soviet images were to be retagged as fair use? They were carefully and painstakenly sorted out and, unfortunately only about 5 users took part as no one else cared but a huge number of people where just itching to have them deleted. I hope the happiness of those who achieved their goal is greater than the grief and feeling of a catastrophe of those who painstakenly built the articles about USSR, Russia, Ukraine and other topics. I do not request not to be "bothered" but you helped exactly zero in imrpoving the situation with Soviet images. Actually the net sum of your "help" was negative as you added your voice to the those of Wikilawyeres. OK, I will stop ranting. Enough said. --Irpen 07:52, 19 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Maybe you could read again what I wrote on Alex's talk page. (see ).  Since you erased it so quickly, let me quote here the sentence I added at the end:
 * Sorry to bother you about this, and for using this ugly template, but the picture is a featured one on Ukraine portal and as such its license should be specified correctly.


 * Portal talk:Ukraine/Featured picture places the picture in the category "Past selected pictures", which seems to indicate to me that it was/is a Featured picture. If I am wrong on this point, please correct me.
 * It was a featured picture at the time when Soviet-PD was not assaulted yet. --Irpen 04:50, 20 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Anyway, enough of this. The situation was resolved quickly, and debating it further only wastes our time. Balcer 13:44, 19 October 2006 (UTC)

Peace, guys. Balcer, I am not feel offended in any way. I have commented out the picture from the talk page of the Ukrainian portal. You had valid reasons to ask for the Fair Use Rationale and it is much better to warn uploader (the mover actually, I just transferred it from Commons, then the PD-Soviet was deleted there but still legal on en-wiki) that just silently post it for deletion. The text of the template as much my fault as yours - we should make it more friendly. But you have to understand us, for the last 10 days we were mostly sorting the image problems (look for the last thousand of my edits here and on commons to understand what I mean), a few hundreds of the images were retagged as fair use and most lack the fair use rationales as yet. We would add the rationales eventually but give us some time. As a matter of fact, I expected that the demand for the rationales would come from the members of the Fair-Usage project (Abu Badalai, Lupo, Carnildo or Renata) not from the people usually more interested in content, thus, there was some over-reaction. Now, I think the issue is closed Alex Bakharev 21:55, 19 October 2006 (UTC)

Zenon Kossak
Hi Irpen,

You added some details to this page. Zenon was my Great Uncle, I only learned of him one year ago. I wanted to ask if you have any information about him or Hryhorij Kossak (his brother). Do you know of any other resources?

Thank you,

Mark


 * Sorry, I can't help you with that. I added a little info to the article when I was tiding it up and it was a while ago and I was using the info I could quickly google. I have no knowledge on the issue other than what I wrote. Regards, --Irpen 03:32, 19 October 2006 (UTC)

Ldingley
Hey Irpen, I don’t think that user:Ldingley had some hidden intention when notifying them about the draft. AFAIK, he is very much interested in Poland and I presume he needed a feedback from Polish users who mostly work on military history articles. Also, I always report relevant articles on the Portal:Russia noticeboard despite being continuously discouraged by this sort of feedback Once the article is moved to the mainspace, I’m going to announce it. I do need some constructive advice and your comments will be very much welcomed. Regards, --Kober 05:27, 19 October 2006 (UTC)


 * I did not see any hidded agenda. I just found the choice strange. Even within the MilHist project there are editors who specialize in Russia's military history and their feedback was not requested. --Irpen 07:52, 19 October 2006 (UTC)

Spell
If you do not mind I can correct some smaller spelling things here and there for you. I will not do any edit changes. Just spelling. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jallor (talk • contribs)
 * Sure I don't mind you correcting my spelling and grammar. Moreover, I don't mind you correcting and editing over anything I write in mainspace. --Irpen 07:52, 19 October 2006 (UTC)

Retagging commons images
Hey, long time!

I looked through all the Soviet AFV images on commons, and found that Alex had already combed through and retagged the appropriate ones. What should I look at? Is there a talk page to coordinate the effort?

Cheers. —Michael Z. 2006-10-21 04:25 Z 

It may only be a matter of time until PD-Russia is challenged, and who knows how well it can be defended? Can you think of any way we can anticipate this and deal with it?

Do you know of any Ukrainian or Russian photo archives which provide good public access? Do you think it's possible to gain access to public-domain Soviet photos, with solid documentation of their provenance or copyright status? It would be nice to send someone in with a scanner and make some of this stuff accessible forever. I'm not in any position to help directly, but maybe we could take up a collection to provide some incentive for a volunteer. —Michael Z. 2006-10-21 05:12 Z 

Muchas gracias


Hey Irpen, thanks a lot for supporting me in my recent RfA. It succeeded, and I am very grateful to all of you. If you ever need help with anything, please don't hesitate to ask. Also, feel free point out any mistakes I make! Thanks again, &mdash; Khoikhoi 05:08, 21 October 2006 (UTC)

Participants in World War II
Hi! Can you please take a look at the article? A user pushes nationalistic propaganda and rejects any discussion in the talk page.--Nixer 15:52, 21 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Hello. Really could you moderate on that one. Because some statments pushed by Nixer are pure nonsense. I know it's touchy subject and should not be left to Nixer, but rather to more rational users, so consensus could be reached. Thanks. Encyclopaedia Editing Dude 15:59, 21 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Looks like managed to solve it for now. Sorry for bothering. Encyclopaedia Editing Dude 17:17, 21 October 2006 (UTC)

Cossacks
Give me a hand to sort the dispute out. --Kuban Cossack 17:43, 22 October 2006 (UTC)

Double standards
vs. Would you like to explain what's the difference between "libarating" and "alliance"?--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus 01:08, 26 October 2006 (UTC)
 * I can explain if you want as I always welcome scrutiny of my contributions and I do not consider my edits faultless. Now, that I am better read on on the 1918-1920 events, I would not have placed the PP allaince into the quotation marks. Note that over the last several days I gave the KO a new once-over and I did not add the quotation marks. Now, I find the wording Petlura-Pilsudski allance appropriate. What I would still object to would be passingly calling it a Polish-Ukrainian alliance as the degree to which Petlura represented Ukraine as well as his legitimacy to do so is rather questionable. But Petlura-Pilsudki allaince is, IMO, and acceptable wording. I am not quotizing it anymore, as you can notice. Also, I changed the red link of the future article to the neutral Treaty of Warsaw (1920) that both matches other similar articles and allowes to avoid the controversy in the title. --Irpen 02:00, 26 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Although it seems we tend to disagree on an increasing number of things recently (a saddening development contrary to my August expectations : I do think that 'P-P alliance' is an acceptable phrase; ToW is also reasonable. Having said that, I would appreciate it if you could tell me what kind of edits are needed to make you withdraw your objection to the History of Solidarity.--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus 23:40, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

Discussion of copyright law on my page
Hi. If you have time, have a look at the discussion of the copyright status of photos of gov. buildings on my discussion page. That lawyer -- I have serious doubts a lawyer would spend time editing Wikipedia -- is correct that someone holds a copyright to the photos. His claim that the cabinet per se can hold a copyright is junk and it comes amid allegations that people from FSU are sort of "uncivilized". Sashazlv 04:36, 26 October 2006 (UTC) Just one thing. It occurred to me he is a typical chronofag: does not offer anything constructive and wastes someone else's time. Sashazlv 04:38, 26 October 2006 (UTC)


 * I saw the discussion. What can I say? Only this. Sad indeed. --Irpen 05:07, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

3RR
Please refrain from undoing other people's edits repeatedly. If you continue, you may be blocked from editing Wikipedia under the three-revert rule, which states that nobody may revert a single page more than three times in 24 hours. (Note: this also means editing the page to reinsert an old edit. If the effect of your actions is to revert back, it qualifies as a revert.) Thank you. Shannernanner 13:57, 26 October 2006 (UTC)
 * I am familiar with rules. I did not break 3RR either. Reverts are regretable but you refused to explain at talk why you reverted by suggestions. More here. --Irpen 01:34, 27 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Please stop falsely accusing me of refusing to explain my edits at talk. That is not true.  As soon as you requested that I do so, I did (edit summary requesting dated 13:39, 25 October 2006 (UTC), discussion comment dated 09:18, 26 October 2006 (UTC)).  Shannernanner  01:43, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

As soon as you explained I stopped reverting you and followed to the discussion. --Irpen 01:46, 27 October 2006 (UTC)
 * If you are saying you were reverting my edits because I was not explaining myself, I left edit summaries every time which I believe properly explained exactly why I did so and what policy backed it up. If you wished further clarification at any earlier point, you needed only ask.  Shannernanner  01:51, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

Thanks
Thanks for reverting the Bonni-suspected IP on War of Transnistria. I was going to do it but you beat me to it. Could I ask you to also please keep an eye on Transnistria itself? Or maybe even help us out on the talk-page? The page had to be locked down (Khoi requested it) because of constant edit warring. I am trying to hold the fort, but I have already been getting a lot of abuse. Just today, one other contributor left in disgust with the ultra-nationalist Romanian trolls. I have to deal with KGB-accusations, and worse, on an almost daily basis (just today alone, I was told that I was a paid spinmeister for the mafia, and that I was a pro-Putin dictator.) - Mauco 23:31, 27 October 2006 (UTC)


 * I am not sure how much I will be able to help. I left that article a while ago for these very reasons and never came back. I will see what I can do. --Irpen 23:35, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

Ukraine in RR
Thanks. I think that's not a bad nucleus, and links to a lot of the relevant articles. I'd still like to see a beginning section about Ukraine during the revolution, but I don't know much about it, and I really have to devote more time to work for the next week (or year). Cheers. —Michael Z. 2006-10-28 01:35 Z 

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

Kelly Martin is thanked for her long and honorable service. As Kelly Martin and Tony Sidaway gave up their sysop and other rights under controversial circumstances, they must get them back through normal channels. Giano II may, if developers cooperate, be restored to access to the account Giano. He is requested to avoid sweeping condemnations of other users when he has a grievance. Jdforrester is reminded to maintain decorum appropriate for an Arbitrator.

For the Arbitration Committee. Arbitration Committee Clerk, Thatcher131 14:10, 28 October 2006 (UTC)

Hi
I'm going to start writing some articles again and finishing projects I left open. Please take a look at Mezhirich. It came up while I was editing Avramenko and I was shocked at what I found on the internet. Any idea why the UkieWP doesn't have an article? Anyway, I don't even know what type of current settlement is there, so please fill it in if you have an index of Ukrainian settlements handy!--tufkaa 01:05, 29 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Sorry, haven't got to that yet. --Irpen 10:53, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

Carpatho-Ukraine
References added.

Regards,

Realismadder


 * Thanks a lot! --Irpen 10:53, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

Thank you
 Thank you for your support for the future

RfC Halibutt
Probably you will be interested in this: Requests for comment/Halibutt M.K. 23:10, 4 November 2006 (UTC)

Romanian language and diaspora

 * But me no speak English. Just kidding. Alright, I haven't noticed that I used Romanian alot lately. I'll try to remember to write in English. Dapiks 05:26, 6 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Yeah I agree. Perhaps the way to solve this would be to mention in the article that Romanians living in Ukraine, Serbia, Moldova, PMR, Bulgaria, Hungary, Albania, Macedonia and Greece are not part of the diaspora and then give the numbers for the rest.Dapiks 05:51, 6 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Agree. --Irpen 10:53, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

Hi Irpen. I've translated the dialogue between Bonaparte and I into Romanian, as requested. Please see User talk:Ronline. If there's anything else you'd like translated, please let me know. Thanks, Ronline ✉ 07:10, 6 November 2006 (UTC)
 * I hope it won't be necessary as editors will understand the need to use English in Wiki-space and keep their native languages for the private comunication, which are OK to have as well of course. Thanks, --Irpen 10:53, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

Empress Alexandra of Russia
OK, got that Irpen. Thanks. James5555 10:35, 7 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Sure and thank you! --Irpen 10:44, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

Kiev Expedition
Hi Irpen, the Kiev Expedition article we had discussed a while back has has been moved. I know you oppose unilateral moves, so I thought I'd let you know. Appleseed (Talk) 03:55, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

Alexander Marinesko
Hi, Irpen. I had this article on my watchlist, because I had originally raised an issue on its talk page. I wonder if anybody else it watching it: dsomebody keeps making POV changes to it. Persoanlly, I would like to see the original version referenced as well, but I think the current version is more problematic. Can you please have a look? Dahn 12:06, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

Thousands of fair use images at your disposal
Look what I found Большая Советская Энциклопедия. Thousands of 1970s images from the 3rd edition that can be uploaded under fair use for anything. Also right now I have the original 1950s 2nd edition of the encyclopedia in 50+ hardbacks with excellend PD images in them. Any requests? --Kuban Cossack 13:41, 11 November 2006 (UTC)


 * Thanks! I know about the site and even uploaded images from it. The problem with fairuse images are going only to get worse as more and more editors instead of content creation make assaulting articles under Copyright pretences as their main activity. But, 1950 GSE would be PD as the publisher "Sovetskaya Entsiklopediya", that publshied all tomes, was a Soviet legal etnity and as such, under current opinion of WP wanna be copyright experts, it is PD-RU (you don't know of course how things will change. Once those got a taste of blood by deleting PD-USSR-1972, they might assalt PD-1954 as well.) Anyway, what you can do is to check that particular image uploaded from the 70s edition is also present in the 1950 edition. If it is, we can replace the restrictive tags, such as "historic", with a least restrictive PD. Cheers, --Irpen 20:59, 11 November 2006 (UTC)

moving controversial articles
You have recently moved article which seems controversial. You must refrain from such moves without a Request for Move procedure. It is regarded as disrupting Wikipedia. If you continue to move a controversial article, it is regarded edit warring, and moves are even graver than warring on content of an article. Such offence may lead to your blocking, and in extreme cases, banning from editing Wikipedia. Do not do it again. Marrtel 02:00, 13 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Not sure what you mean. Could you be a little more specific? If you are talking about Vyborg (castle), I simply moved it back after someone else made an undiscussed move. Generally, you should learn to assume good faith and ask questions politely instead of throwing warnings left and right which may be considered trolling and may lead to yourself being blocked for harrassment. --Irpen 02:10, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

Your "Warning on AGF": "Wikipedia guidelines dictate that you assume good faith in dealing with other editors. Please stop being uncivil to your fellow editors, and assume that they are here to improve Wikipedia.  Thank you. --Irpen 02:13, 13 November 2006 (UTC)"

This is a clearly undeserved warning from Irpen. I warned Irpen against his moves of controversial articles without RM - Irpen has recently made such controversial moves. As result, Irpen throwns "AGF" warning to me. I think I let readers to decide who breaks against AGF and acts disingenuouosly. Marrtel 02:55, 13 November 2006 (UTC)


 * I epxlained to you that I just moved the article back to where it was. Take your grievances to the editor who moved it without discussion. I just returned the article to its location. --Irpen 03:03, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

from Constantzeanu
Well aside from calling me a "pain in the ass", mind you that it is those two very admins that have being bullying me and "personally attacking me" and not the other way around. And by the way, I do not see anyone here as an opponent. I have been contributing to wikipedia for quite some time now. Yes sometimes I may come out too strongly. Sometimes I have even had grievences with you but most times we came together on most stuff because despite what you might think I often seek to be reasonable, despite what you rightfully call "my strong convictions".Dapiks 02:53, 13 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Consta, the problem is that you act too strongly all the time. You blame them, they blame you. There is nothing new at that. Just chill out. --Irpen 03:03, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

Userboxes
I agree with you, Irpen. My point is that politics should be kept out of userspace. I have put a couple of political userboxes on my subpage in response to some users who support separatist entities. I generally dislike them, however, and I will eagerly remove them if we all reach a sort of consensus on limiting any kind of political agenda on userpages. However, since we cannot prevent people from expressing their views, one should try to avoid the most extreme forms of political propaganda like this. Anyway, I agree with you that we should leave such users alone. Thanks, Kober 07:11, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

Integrity
I have absolutely no idea what you're bragging about.  // Halibutt 08:43, 13 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Sorry Irpen but I still fail to understand you. I consider removal of interwiki links an act of vandalism. I don't like Polish wiki either and consider it much, much inferior to other versions. However, I don't go on a campaign to remove interwiki links to that project. Same goes for the problems people in Poland have with the Silesian wikipedia.
 * If the Siberian wiki, for whatever it is, is now part of our project - we should live with it. Specific articles on English wiki are not the place for discussion on a future of one of wikipedias. Especially that, as far as I can tell, there's no obscenities at ru-sib:Великой Новгород.  // Halibutt 21:49, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

An olive branch
Listen, we got off on the wrong foot, but I really don't want to keep on fighting with you. What do you say we end this now? I promise not to attack you or say any more snotty things if you do the same. Deal? &mdash; Chowbok  ☠  16:54, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

National Bureau of Investigation
Hey, you think this is worthy of an article? , Let me know what you think. — Alex (T 02:08, 15 November 2006 (UTC)
 * It is sure worthy of an article if it is already establisged. Is it? --Irpen 04:18, 15 November 2006 (UTC)


 * It was established once in 1997, but then disbanded because the VR decided not to fund it. And now they're trying to re-establish it again. — Alex (T 05:20, 15 November 2006 (UTC)


 * ... So what do you think? — Alex (T 00:31, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

I won't object to an article of course. --Irpen 00:32, 16 November 2006 (UTC)


 * Just wanted to see your opinion on starting one. Some poeple might think it's too early. In addition, we need to move the current National Bureau of Investigation page to National Bureau of Investigation (Philippines). I guess you're neutral on it, eh? — Alex (T 00:36, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

User refuses to discuss
User Encyclopaedia Editing Dude contiuously removes links to the Soviet archives, declassified in early 1990s from Josef Stalin, insterting links to an eyewitness interview made by BBC and other biased and/or non-reliable sources. He refuses to talk and removes my comments from his talk page. He also said that he will break any rules to restore his version. I requested RFC on this topic and in two weeks received only one comment (in favor of my version). Please do something to make the user to discuss his changes.--Nixer 17:13, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

ru-sib
Why are you removing these link? They don't constitute linkspam; they're links to other language articles. -Patstuart(talk)(contribs) 01:16, 16 November 2006 (UTC)
 * See user talk:A4. --Irpen 02:00, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

Kiev
Irpen, I'm a little surprised by your response. When I moved the page to Kiev Expedition several months ago, you reverted me for making a unilateral move and asked me to use the talk page. I obliged, and after a week passed with no objections (including from you) I moved it again. Because of this interaction I solicited your input when Ghirlandajo moved the page, but this time the unilateral move did not interest you. As for the actual name of the article, I am always open to discussion. However, I was snubbed by Ghirlandajo, you were silent until now. Appleseed (Talk) 22:15, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

Commons you'd like to save
Just stumbled upon Image:Kukryniksy-razgromim.jpg. Bah, I should've checked the discussion first. In the future, don't hesistate to call me for such votes, I'd be happy to help.--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus 01:17, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

sib-wiki vote
I herebe authorise that this vote to support closure of sib-wiki and this vote to oppose the sib-wikisource were cast by me. --Irpen 19:39, 17 November 2006 (UTC)


 * I suppose there was a problem with voter nr 2 as well? Point being that I cannot find the history before November 4th! --Pan Gerwazy 20:02, 18 November 2006 (UTC)


 * By the way, "authorise" is incorrect here. Should be "certify". I have decided to put a re-vote there. No prob. --Pan Gerwazy 20:18, 18 November 2006 (UTC)

ru-sib again
Hi! The proposal to close Siberian wiki was made on Nov 2, 23:59. At least one account voted "contra" was created on Nov 3. Do you think the date in the announcement at the top of the page should be changed to Nov 3? --Yms 06:36, 19 November 2006 (UTC)


 * I think this would be a fair thing to do. If the proposal was submitted one minute before midnight GMT. Accounts that have votes should be created on Nov. 2 or earlier. I will ammend appropriately. --Irpen 04:49, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

Уважаемый Irpen, я хочу проголосовать за закрытие ru-sib раздела, но не могу понять, как. Мой аккаунт в MetaWiki создан только что, но аккаунты ru:BeautifulFlying & en:BeautifulFlying существуют почти 3 месяца. Пожалуйста, напишите мне в ru:user talk:BeautifulFlying. --BeautifulFlying 17:35, 28 November 2006 (UTC)
 * (Irpen, я переношу дискуссию со своей страницы, чтобы было удобнее) Спасибо за Вопрос. Вы можете проголосовать своим недавно созданым на мете аккаунтом, если вы подтвердите свой голос своим аккаунтом на ру-вики. Для этого Вам надо после голоса поданного на Мете написать здесь на Вашей собственной странице обсуждения, желательно по-английски, что Вы подтверждаете, что мета-аккаунт с которого подан голос и данный ру-вики аккаунт контролируются принадлежат одному лицу. --Irpen 18:55, 28 ноября 2006 (UTC)
 * Да здесь-то [у себя на странице] я могу подтвердить, не вопрос. Я не знаю, как подать голос на Мете - страница http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Proposals_for_closing_projects/Closure_of_Siberian_Wikipedia закрыта для редактирования (может, это из-за того, что мой Мета-аккаунт ещё слишком "молодой"?), а если есть какие-то спец кнопки, я их не вижу... --BeautifulFlying 22:31, 28 ноября 2006 (UTC)

Re:3RR
Hi - I did not apply the block hastily. Pls see this response to Bishonen's concerns. Rama's arrow 05:24, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

Featured_article_candidates/Sviatoslav_I_of_Kiev
Thought you would be interested in this vote. Briangotts (Talk) (Contrib) 16:04, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

Theodor Oberländer
Finally I managed to write something about someone who ruined my life before it started. Where do you think I should announce it? This looks like an entry for at least four country portals. Funnily, when I first started on it, there was no Norwegian version. Now that I am reasonably OK with it, there it is. Someting in the air over Europe, I suppose. --Pan Gerwazy 17:44, 20 November 2006 (UTC)


 * I took the liberty of copyediting the article a bit; good work, PG. You should definitely announce it at the German board, and the Ukrainian, Polish, and Russian boards would be relevant because of this individual's actions. Cheers, Olessi 18:33, 20 November 2006 (UTC)


 * Sorry about the edit conflict, Irpen, I'll try to remember the inuse template for the future. Olessi 18:54, 20 November 2006 (UTC)
 * No problem, it is all merged now. --Irpen 18:55, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

Sviatoslav
Do you like that map or user who created it? It false. Have you never read books about cartography? --Alex Kov 08:29, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

Image:Stanislavsky.jpg
Thanks :-)

BTW, did you ever considered to archive your user talk page...? Yuval Y • Chat • 22:29, 21 November 2006 (UTC)


 * I do it from time to time. Maybe there is time. --Irpen 22:31, 21 November 2006 (UTC)


 * Don't panic. Even though I'm an administrator in commons, I'm not a "copyright freak" (as far as I know..)
 * Best regards, Yuval Y • Chat • 23:15, 21 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Goodnight :-) (If you reply, I'll read it tommorow...) Yuval Y • Chat • 00:27, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

I don't mind if you add the picture to Russo-Lithuanian Wars instead of Matejko's. Thanks. -- Ghirla -трёп-  07:34, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

Reply
The tag won't be there for "months". An admin will look at the photo in the next few days; either he'll agree with me and delete the image, or he'll agree with you and remove the tag. Again, if you think it "frivolous", that's what the "disputed" tag is for. &mdash; Chowbok  ☠  21:24, 24 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Please do. &mdash; Chowbok  ☠  21:50, 24 November 2006 (UTC)

Taras and Matthias
He asked in Polish, I replied using that language as courtesy, which I find not an issue on private talk pages. As for his revert, ask him, I reverted him and made a critical comment in edit summary. Also, as I noted on talk of that article, please be careful with 3RR. PS. I see no need to report you, per our understanding. But I will also not stop others from enforcing Wiki policies, and if a user ask me how to report a 3RR, I am as likely to tell this to him as if he ask me how to report an admin abuse or an personal attack or any other problem - without concern if he than intends to report me, my friend, my collegue or a troll.--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus 22:36, 24 November 2006 (UTC)
 * As you know full well, I was not revert warring but expanding the article which I did. Your fellow reverted me blindly and left an insulting entry about myself at your talk in Polish (my understanding of Polish is not zero). I am all so tired of this and I am leaving the article to you and your friends. Have fun with it and write more about the civilizing "expedition" of the Koniecpolski and his mercenaries into Ukraine. --Irpen 22:46, 24 November 2006 (UTC)

What are you referring to?
I did not see you had left me a message until just now while looking in my History file, by accident. I didn't have the usual new message notice that pops up when others write me. Which comment are you telling me to put in another section, please? I have made more than one comment and I don't know what you mean by threaded. I edited myself and was making sure my updated edit to myself to clarify myself was distinguished. What is it you want me to put in a separate section, and where on the page are you saying the section needs to go? On a discussion page? I want my caveats (i.e., my differences from the other people) kept in my endorsement. I do not want a separate section. Otherwise it's as though I have to write a separate view, and I didn't see a place to write a separate view since I didn't see myself as an Outside View. I thought the places to write are the original complaint view, Chowbok's response, and an outside view, but I'm one of the people he's been writing to so I wouldn't think I'm an outside view. I don't want my comments separated out that explain my view. Are you saying all I can say in the endorsement is my name without any explanation of my endorsement? It's not a "threaded" answer. I just put some italics for readability when I tried to edit myself. If that looks like threading then I can remove the italics. This is just turning into a nightmare where I can't even be part of adding a comment without being taken to task for how I write a comment. It's time consuming and taking me away from everything else; I had my family yelling at me earlier because I couldn't finish getting the replies done and it's a holiday and they were trying to leave the house. You are now asking me to go back in and spend yet more time on where you want me to put which part of which comment? – Bebop 03:55, 27 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Irpen, I have attempted to do what I think you were asking me to. I hope I did what you requested properly. I have moved my lengthy comments to the Discussion page and provided a link to them. I didn't think I was an "outside" view per se because I am "another user endorsing the main view" but with a few additional thoughts, so I put my discussion in the Discussion page. I have a section in the discussion page for my additional thoughts on the endorsement of the main view and a separate Discussion page section about my thoughts on Robth's view. Thanks. – Bebop 04:59, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

Blanking?
Sorry, but I don't know what you're talking about. In the Holodomor article, I didn't leave that section blank. I created a new article with all the information from that section of the Holodomor article, leaving it with a link to the main article. Therefore I wouldn't call this blanking at all.

Elonka's complaint
Um, Irpen, would you care to explain this edit? where you're accusing me of making a "provocative and unsubstantiated complaint"? That sounds an awful lot like a personal attack... Could you please supply a diff of such a thing, or perhaps choose to rephrase? --Elonka 01:10, 2 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Elonka, you know full well what I am talking about. This was your post to the Admin board that you titled Ethnic slur while you know full well that there was nothing of that sort. Further details are at talk:JzG. I can't believe you forgot this story and require links. If you need them, I can tell you where to find them. Two places: Archives of ANI with the thread and archives of your talk, where Piotrus tells you when he was looking for a way to block one editor (not myself, btw, so there is no personal issue here). If you really forgot and can't find them, I will put aside some time to find them for you. --Irpen 01:17, 2 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Yes please. --Elonka 03:13, 2 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Done at the same place. Strange that you "have forgotten". --Irpen 03:15, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

Conspiracy theories on Vladimir Putin
If you have time, I'll appreciate your input on the article and other editors knowledgeable about Russia. Earlier today, I converted a new section of the Vladimir Putin aritlce, consisting of a long narrative of conspiracy theories, into a section on Putin's crime policies-- content I think actually helps make the article more encyclopedic. But then I was reverted by editor accusing me of "suppressing documented information." 172 | Talk 02:42, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

Nixer
I was planning on only giving him a 24 hours block because of the 3RR violation, but when I saw his block log, I saw that a 24 hour block is meaningless to somebody who is repeatedly blocked. User:Zoe|(talk) 07:29, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

All he has to do is to indicate that his edit was inappropriate, and swear not to do it again, and he can be unblocked. But he thinks the ridiculous Soviet propaganda he was reverting was appropriate. User:Zoe|(talk) 07:34, 2 December 2006 (UTC)
 * I agree with you and I actually told him the same. But in any case I disagree with indef here. --Irpen 07:35, 2 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Indef. doesn't mean permanent. He can be unblocked in a minute.  It's all up to him.  User:Zoe|(talk) 07:38, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

Спасибо!
Or dzhakuyu, of course, but do not ask me to write that in Cyrillic. In case you can find the time to - well, anyway, I will tell you how I feel. You know, I was half prepared to ask the Jadger crowd to help me over Eupen-Malmedy and to simultaneously mail Molobo for more info about the various names of Rumia/Rahmel (that is of course about that woman) since 1220.

I actually reverted Dutch Erika Steinbach before getting into this state. I had not even noticed what that guy had written. He even put up a block warning in German. So he actually believes what he wrote. ;>)

Бабушка (моя тёща) пришла из Луцка. Завтра у нас будет голубцы. Вкусно. Всё в порядке. Только написал чтобы сбить их в толку. Может быть, бабэлфиш внесёт другое замешательство. Налейте! До краёв! Друзья мои, прекрасен наш союз. Он как душа неразделим и вечен, неколебим, свободен и беспечен. За союз! --Pan Gerwazy 00:15, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

Featured article candidates/Rus' Khaganate
Thought you might be interested in this FAC. Briangotts (Talk) (Contrib) 18:53, 11 December 2006 (UTC)


 * Thank you for keeping me informed. I do not intend to rephrase. In any cae, the article is good and it will have no problem to become FA whatever outcome my dialogue with Ghirla may have. Thanks again!--Yannismarou 10:26, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

New essay
If you're interested, it sort of kind of summarizes my view of how a lot of our interactions go awry: User:Geogre/People_People. Geogre 13:04, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

Kursk
Hi Irpen, I just saw that you reverted my revert of the addition of the word "decisive" to describe the Soviet victory at Kursk. The reason I did that is that there had already been a discussion on the talk page and I believed that the consensus was to just call it a "Soviet Victory." Although the Soviet side clearly emerged victorious, the battle wasn't as great a success as the Battle of Stalingrad for instance, and the word "decisive" is normally reserved for more overwhelming defeats. At least that was my interpretation of it. TSO1D 19:46, 16 December 2006 (UTC)

CHOWBOK VANDALISM
Hi mate what are we going to do about chowbok? I have started many new articles on actors and films recently which were missing from wikipedia and I bothered to take to time to upload images which are specialized promotional images. Many of my new articles on finnish actors - come on it took nearly six years to get them onto wikipedia and I keep telling Cjhowbok it is highly highly unlikely a totally free image of the guy walking down the street is suddenly going to be available, but he keeps tagging my work. I see this as vandalism. Why doesn't he concentrate on making wikipedia a better place rather than vandalising my work. I believe it is very important to physically identify the actor in question and he is removing a valuable information source which wikipedia strongly agrees. It really is annoying me and I see you and others agree with it. This is a form of vandalism and to be honest it is quite discouraging to know I am bothering to start the articles and find a image which is fair use and it is being deleted. WHat shall be do. Ernst Stavro Blofeld 09:51, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

As I said before it is a form of vandalism. I agree for instance an image should be tagged for a photograph of a town that is copywrighted for instance when a replaceable free image is very likely but not for this, man. He is ruining it all for everybody. Ernst Stavro Blofeld 21:52, 25 November 2006 (UTC)

Ще раз стосовно сибірського "Вонегина"
Я ще раз перечитав уважно сибірський переклад Пушкіна, а також Шекспіра і дійшов висновку, що нічого ані образливого ані глузливого по відношенню до великих класиків, або до російської чи англійської нації там немає. Більше того, великий український поет Іван Котляревський зробив приблизно те ж саме з "Енеїдою", виклавши давньогрецьку класику досить потішною і на той час ще офіційно не визнаною мовою.

Єдине, що у відповідних статтях слід було б вказати, що це є авторизований переклад та перемістити до вікісорсу, якого поки що у них немає. --A4 14:23, 19 November 2006 (UTC)


 * Мені неприємно бачити, як ображають Котляревського, порівнюючи "Еней був парубок моторний" з "Ебьона мать, опеть припьорся дык!" Крім усього, Котляревський писав пародію (точніше, травестію), а ми тут бачимо переклад Шекспіра, де Горацій каже "мать твою розтак!". Ну, спробуйте знайти аналогію такому Гамлету у перекладах на українську XIX ст. Мені тільки Лесь Подерв'янський приходить на згадку (та й він непорівняно кращий, його теж не хочеться ображувати). --Yms 15:04, 19 November 2006 (UTC)

RfC of Chowbok
I'm attempthing to start the process. Not sure if I'm going about it correctly though. The only page I can find on RfC is here and it seems all I have to do is post a short summary of the problem? TheQuandry 15:32, 25 November 2006 (UTC)
 * I'm having trouble figuring this out. Maybe you should do it. :-) I'll help out any way I can and certainly provide comment in our favor. TheQuandry 15:57, 25 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Okay, sounds good! TheQuandry 19:50, 25 November 2006 (UTC)
 * I've decided to go ahead and do the RfC myself after all. Please feel free to make additions, provide commentary and find others to comment if you like. TheQuandry 03:30, 26 November 2006 (UTC)

RFC comment
Hi Irpen... I just noticed you editng some photos on my watchlist... care to comment at Requests for comment/Abu badali? -- PageantUpdater  •  talk  |  contribs  |  esperanza  02:41, 29 November 2006 (UTC)
 * I think the user displays the same trend being discussed at Chowbok's RfC. In fact, I would have merged them. I will follow it but I am not sure when I will have time to post an opinion while I do have an interest to do that. I want to post the view to the Chowbok's RfC first. But please do attent the pages in Wikipedia space because by not doing this editors allow the sociolizers hijack the policies and the Wikipedia itself. --Irpen 02:51, 29 November 2006 (UTC)


 * Can you translate "please do attent the pages in Wikipedia space because by not doing this editors allow the sociolizers hijack the policies and the Wikipedia itself" for me? Sorry but as I said in the RFC I'm new to doing that and was more than a little confused about what I was doing! Am happy to merge if it is necessary... --  PageantUpdater  •  talk  |  contribs  |  esperanza  02:56, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

I am sorry for poor grammar. I was in rush. Please take a look here, maybe that would explain it to you. Also, Requests for comment/Chowbok and its talk (as well as links from them) might be worthy for you to look at. --Irpen 03:03, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

Chowbok and FUD
The next time you remove a Replaceable Fair Use tag, I will report you for vandalism. No matter how much you hate the policy, my interpretation of the policy, or me, you can't just take those tags off the image pages. This is the last time I'll warn you about this. &mdash; Chowbok  ☠  01:16, 30 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Chowbok, please Wikipedia: Assume Good Faith. If Irpen removed the tag it must have been because the tag was added to a place where it did not belong. As we all have the best interests of Wikipedia at heart, we all are just being bold and editing for the common good. Thank you. TheQuandry 02:28, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

Chowbok, if the uploader believes in good faith that the image is usable under the FU clause and the uploader provided a gf rationale for such use and gave a source, the image may still be questionalbe, true enough, as the uploader may have made a judgement error. However, the courtesy and common sense demands that if you find this to be the case and you question the image's rationale, you provide the uploader and the rest of the interested users with the explanation at image talk on why you think his/her rationale is faulty. Such explanation belongs to an image talk similar to the dispute points raised by the user who tags the article as uncompliant with Wikipedia NPOV policy. No such tag can be added without explanation and there is no single case when I removed the tag when such explanation was provided by you or whoever.

Your dispute claim should address specific rationale given by the uploader as applies to the specific article rather than be a generic sentence pasted into hundreds of pages as done frequnetly by Quadell. Without such elaboration your FUD claim is meaningless and impossible to address by the user however much he is willing to satisfy you. Similarly to other disputed tag, your favored tag is meaningless if not accompanied with a specific explanation that is likely different in each an every case. Besides, using generic Quandel style "dispute" via pasting the same paragraph to hundreds of pages is also incivil. But completely disregarding the given fair use claim is worse than uncivil, it is disruptive.

I did not remove a tag in a single case where you or anyone gave an explanation on what exactly you dispute at the image talk. I did remove the tag in cases where no such explanation was given. If you want your tags kept, provide an image specific explanation at talk on why the FU claim is invalid. I am unimpressed by your threats and I welcome you to raise the issue on the admin boards as I would welcome your behavior being brought to even wider attention. But as a good will gesture, I will wait to remove your tags for now, to give you a chance to explain your grievances at talk in each specific case but please do so NOW out of courtesy to the editors who uploaded the image, first of all, and for the sake of the encyclopedia to which you claim you serve.

Please note that the current wording of the RFU tag that dictates how it is to be dealt with (responded with RFUD and never removed under any circumstances) is placed at the tag arbitrary, is not dictated by any policy and was not achieved by consensus. The tag being protected impedes the possibility of clearing this up. The tag disputes the compliance with policies the same way as the NPOV tag as explained above. Both are subject to 3RR. Otherwise, please provide the 3RR policy clause that claims otherwise, preferably not edited WRT to this issue within last, say, two months, like a sneaky "update" of the FU policy. There are very narrow cases where 3RR does not apply outside of simple vandalism. Such are removal of good faith AfD tags, true.

Your claim that RFU tag is similar to AfD does not hold water. That would be IfD. The analog to RFU in article space is "PROD" and note that PROD may be removed at any time and may not be replaced. Nevertheless, I do see an argument to treat RFU similar to POV or ACCURACY tags. But no way you can make a case for similarity between AfD and RFU. As such, RFU certainly falls under 3RR policy. At the same time, it should not of course be removed or added by sterile edit warring. Removal is acceptable, similar to NPOV or ACCURACY tags, if there seems to me a clear majority formed on the particular case or the tagger failed to explain his/her problems with the image. This is exactly the case why your tags where removed. Taking no position on the issue of the good faith of their placement, such objections are unexplained and cannot possibly be addressed, unless the image lacks source, rationale or rationale/source are frivolous.

Also, from the mere common sense it follows that if the fairuse image has an elaborate and/or self-evident rationale, whoever questions it needs to explain how s/he disputes such rationale. As such, the tagger should initiate a discussion and tagging the page without initiating such discussion is both uncivil and meaningless as users would have no idea what exactly is disputed. Yes, the burden lies with the FUI uploader to justify the image. However, once justification is provided, the common courtesy as well as common sense requires the tagger to state what exactly is the problem if he sees any in a non-frivolous, non-generic way but specifically in connection with the image in question. --Irpen 03:08, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

Removing messages from your talk
It's frustrating trying to talk to you when you remove the messages from your talk page at will. Talk pages are public visible for a reason, and third part input is wellcome and usually helpful. --Abu Badali 03:18, 30 November 2006 (UTC)
 * I simply responded at your own talk for the sake of discussion's being conducted in one place. As this is pertaining to your RUFD spree, it is best to conduct at your talk. I welcome other user reponses. --Irpen 03:25, 30 November 2006 (UTC)
 * But I was not talking only about this last revert. I mean this (possibly accidental) removal of a copyvio warning, this, this and this reversions of replaceable image taggings, and this and this removal of messages asking you to avoid personal edit summaries (as "rv stalker" and the like).
 * If you're concerned with your talk page growing to long, you can always archieve it. There's even a BOT that can do that automatically for you (I don't remember it's name now, but I can discover it, if you want). Best regards, --Abu Badali 03:40, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

Please read the disclaimer on top of my pages. As for your stalking me, it is true and you know it. As for AGF instead of seeing your activity for what it is stalking and harassment, please note that the AGF specifically states that AGF "does not require that editors continue to assume good faith in the presence of evidence to the contrary." Such evidence is multiple as clear from your RfC that speaks tons about your attitudes as well as reactions from other good faith users at multiple pages. --Irpen 03:49, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

Chowbok continued
The only question that the RFU tag brings up is whether the image is replaceable. As such, regular fair use justifications are beside the point. Typically, disputes are simply reiterations of the fair use justifications and don't address the issue. Other cases in which you have removed the tag people have simply stated "this image is not replaceable" without giving an argument. In any event, if somebody does make a good argument that the image is replaceable, the admin will be swayed by said argument and remove the tag. In any event, it's not something you need to concern yourself with. Feel free to participate in the talk pages of such images, but I must continue to insist that you not remove the tags. &mdash; Chowbok  ☠  19:48, 30 November 2006 (UTC)
 * And I must continue to isnist that when the good faith rationale is given, you explain what exactly you dispute. Do that and none of your tags will ever be removed by me. --Irpen 19:52, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

Chowbok has tagged more of my images evern though I have given a fair use rationale. Ernst Stavro Blofeld 21:32, 30 November 2006 (UTC)


 * Image:ReaMauranen.jpg
 * Image:SariHavas1.jpg
 * Image:TittaJokinen.jpg
 * Image:Tommila.jpg

I saw that. Please make sure the ratioanle is given and if so, Chowbok cares to explain how it is unfit. Otherwise, his tag is invalid and may be removed. --Irpen 21:33, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

Replaceability guidelines
Per your "Agree" vote at Wikipedia talk:Images of living people I think you'll find my proposed replaceability guidelines worth a look. Daniel Case 06:29, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

Image:Werbowy.jpg
hi i tried too refrase the clame on fair use for the picture.Our goal is that the image stayes,were ever the image will apear in the article or how sily the arguments might hear.Please can you trie to brign more editors in the discussion,this is not about one photo but how we can bypass the deletionist in the future--Pixel ;-) 14:05, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

unexplained RFU tag
This was not the proper way to handle that situation, and you know it. If you dispute the replaceability, add the disputed tag on the page and explain why (I have done this for the image in question). Please don't do this again. --RobthTalk 20:10, 8 December 2006 (UTC)
 * The image has an elaborate rationale that includes non-replaceability in the article's context. Unless it is explained at talk how exactly the rationale is disputed the tag is invalid and meaningless. Meaningless tags are disruptive and have no place in Wikipedia. --Irpen 20:43, 8 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Yes, you did add an elaborate rationale in response to the tagging. At the time the tag was added, no such rationale existed, and so the tagger cannot have been expected to dispute that not-yet-existent rationale.  The rfu tag lays out the method for disputing the tag; add the rfu disputed tag and discuss it on the talk page.  As for your assertion that the tag without an explanation is "invalid and meaningless", I reject this.  In most cases it is self evident why someone might think the image replaceable. --RobthTalk 22:45, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

It may be so in many cases. It was not so in the particular case. The image was uploaded very long time ago when the rules were more lax. Now, that I added the elaborate rationale, the tag not supplied with an explanation disputed nothing of it. I did not remove the tag once the editor cared to explain at talk that he thinks the image is non-essential (note that this is different from being replaceable). As soon as there is a meaningful dispute, the tag stays. That the tagging itself came from the stalking by Oden, who decided to dig through all images by myself and another editor in order to avenge an unrelated disagreement, is another matter but it is related to user:Oden and not to the image in question. I will take the issue to ANI for another time. --Irpen
 * Wrong. The tag presents an argument--this image (in this case, of a living person) is replaceable.  It also presents a means for disputing that argument; add the disputed tag, explain the dispute on the talk page.  If the tag truly is frivolous, it will be removed by the administrator who processes that image. Only if a tag is placed on an image that already possesses a rationale, without disputing that rationale, should it be summarily removed (I have edited the template to clarify this). --RobthTalk 23:11, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

The person being alive does not render any image in any context automatically replaceable and the policy does not say so in any way. If the rationale is given, the tag can only be accompanied by a specific dispute to the rationale based on policies, rationale itself and the specific context as any fu rationale is context specific. What we got for the page was the image with the rationale and without an explanation what exactly was disputed. As such, tag was meaningless. As soon as my specific rationale was disputed in any meanigful way, I left the tag in place, despite the challenge claim the image unnecessary rather than replaceable. But I was willing to ommit this issue and responded to the challenge at the talk page. --Irpen 23:27, 8 December 2006 (UTC)


 * You are mistaken. The person being alive does automatically render the image replaceable, barring specific exceptional circumstances.  The policy specifically states this, as I believe you are well aware.  See WP:FU, "a publicity still of a vehicle, building or living person can be replaced comparatively easily", also see counterexample #8 and policy #1 ("if the subject of the photograph still exists, a freely-licensed photograph could be taken".)  --Yamla 00:13, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

This has been discussed at length at various policy talk pages. The exceptional circumstances you mean (like reclusive person, exceptional local priivacy laws, etc) make the image universally usable whenever the particular image in warranted by the content. We are talking here of a less universal but narrow article-specific, content-specific usability. The policy says that the replacement image should provide adequate information. If the rationale addresses that explaining the applicability within the specific context, the challenge should be context-related as well. Image may be important as showing not the person, but that person's work is only one of several such examples. The context-tied rationale requires the context-tied rebuttal. Any fair-use claim is always context specific. --Irpen 01:13, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

Talk:Treaty of Polyanovka
Hello Irpen, you initiated the discussion regarding a new title for the article. I would like to hear your opinion there (but no more page blanking, please). Appleseed (Talk) 18:51, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

sibiropedia
Do you have an idea when will it be over? `'mikkanarxi 20:17, 21 December 2006 (UTC)
 * No idea. But I think the unauthenticated votes casted by both sides have by now to be indented out. Not removed since someone may authenticate them later but indented to be excluded in counting. --Irpen 20:20, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

ru-sib
I can not accept your suggetion. As long as ru-sib is a valid Wikimedia project, I see no reason to boycott it here. As long as it runs it should be interlinked. If you question the ru-sib content, removing interwiki falls under WP:POINT. I can see no consensus nor any alleged "meta-vote" to do so (please be more specyfic if I overlooked something; but please do not request reading enwiki talk pages written in Cyrillic alphabet). If you find that there is a serious problem with ru-sib project, consider complaining about it to Wikimedia instead of delinking. --Beaumont (@)  21:19, 21 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Finally, thanks for notifying. When I edited the link I knew nothing specyfic - it was just an wikiarticle with the wikimedia logo. After a while and with a little help of frwiki I found the closing vote (why did'n you give me the precise link? I would have not insist on linking). Actually, it looks like ru-sib will be closed soon. While now I see no reason to make edit wars about it, forcing fast delinking seems to be not quite civilized way of acting (as the consensus has not been approved). --Beaumont (@)  09:07, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

I wonder why it is not closed yet? Unauth-ed sockpuppets aside, there is clearly a majority >2:1 now in support of the closure. Can you please alert a meta bureaucrat or somebody in position of authority? --BACbKA 13:20, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

Is there any indication whether this "sib-wiki" farce will end soon? It has been dragging on for months now. I would say that Mr. Zolotarev is rather successfully attempting to filibuster the vote. Cossack 08:04, 14 January 2007 (UTC)

Block discussion
This block expires at 23:51 on December 23, 2006. I'm just the messenger, I'm not responsible in any way for the block. --Kind Regards - Heligoland  | Talk |  Contribs 00:46, 22 December 2006 (UTC)
 * FYI, User:Alex Bakharev has unblocked after discussion on the blocking admin's talkpage. There is also some discussion at ANI. Newyorkbrad 01:09, 22 December 2006 (UTC)
 * This whole matter is a big mystery to me, but thanks Brad. I will try to figure from ANI what exactly happened. --Irpen

Hi Irpen

A note to say what a disgrace it was you were banned. However, the disgrace is entirely on the blocking admin. It is an abomination that this is how the system works: one trigger-happy admin gets to blacken a person's log, and thus his reputation for ever more. The developers refuse to amend a log even when the arbcom recommend it. However don't take it to heart, I'm sure a responsible admin. will block you for a millisecond and add an explanation pertaining to the previous block.

Regards Giano 13:22, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

WP:PAIN
Irpen, please avoid inflammatory comments like this one. IRC is irrelevant here, it would be much easier for all if you would just discuss the original Ghirlandajo's comment not the whole organization of the project. You know better than me that WP:PAIN is not WP:VPP or WP:RfC. In future try to focus your comments on the concrete solvable problems and not inflame a situation. Still four different admins agree that the block for this comment was excessive, so I unblocked you. Alex Bakharev 01:15, 22 December 2006 (UTC)


 * Alex, this whole matter was a strange affair. I might have been mistaken in that comment but things were looking very strange. In any case this was not a personal attack of any sort. After I go through diffs to understand what was going on there, I will try to give my assesment at ANI. Something serious has happened and this should now be dealt with. --Irpen 01:47, 22 December 2006 (UTC)


 * Yes, I do agree the block was inappropriate (despite our differences in the past - I hold no ill will towards you :P), and the lack of follow-up on the block does worry me, too. I agree you didn't use any direct personal attacks, but your edits simply came off as hostile, so that in turn seemed incivil and I guess spawned this whole mess completely out of proportion. Sorry to see it went this out of control! :D Cowman109 Talk 01:58, 22 December 2006 (UTC)


 * Cowman109, this is a long chain: "no direct personal attack" → but "edits simply came off hostile" → "that in turm seemed incivil" → 48-hours hit and run block mildly called "this whole mess spawned completely out of proportion". To make such instances remain rare, I will see it investigated fully, including my own comments. --Irpen 02:05, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

I agree you shouldn't have been blocked; I'd have unblocked you if you still were. That said, please, keep your cool, per Alex. You are a very reasonable editor - I have seen you lost your 'cool' and reason only in one set of cases - when it comes to Ghirla. Please don't do this, if you want to help Ghirla, the worst thing you can do is to start acting like him.--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus 02:16, 22 December 2006 (UTC)


 * Piotrus, please do not assign any motives to me. I saw the report frivolous and I said so. Then I saw the reaction which would have further escalated the conflict. You know the rest and I will discuss it elsewhere.


 * It was not the first time the boards were used to achieve the block of your opponent. This was just another instance. No personal attack took place to warrant a report.


 * Then we got a well-meaning but clueless onlooker acting on the unwarranted report and... Well, I said it all at WP:PAIN but that a side matter for our dispute which I will take at ANI.


 * As for hour matter, I repeatedly told you one and only thing. The problem between you and Ghirla is very similar to the problem between M.K. and Halibutt, the irreconsilable differences of the world views that breed the content disputes. That you try to gain the upper hand in such disputes by presenting your opponent as a troll and trying to get him blocked is reprehencible. I said so before and I will repeat that any time. There are no horrific incivillities to warrant any formal action. These are only content disputes no matter how you try to present it as behavioral ones. Please reread my summary at Halibutt's RfC to this matter.


 * Now, what happened here is a whole different matter to which you have no relation. I will try to get to the bottom of it, though. --Irpen 02:36, 22 December 2006 (UTC)


 * Really? You know, I think that being called a troll, a vandal, a Russophobe, a Ghirlandophobe, a Polish nationalist, puppet and meat sockmaster, anti-Ghirla crusader, stalker, harasser, vote stacker and many other names I just don't feel like recalling is a personal attack warranting a report. Alas, I guess that you have no problem when I or others are called those names, but when anybody try to report the person calling them, than it is bad, right? :( Oh well. I guess some things just depend on who is doing them, and to whom.--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus 14:01, 22 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Sorry to butt in, but this conversation is really getting nowhere, and I would simply suggest that you two simply avoid each other - sometimes the best response is no response at all. Cowman109 Talk 22:35, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

Such disengagement tends to happen particularly after acquiring of adminship
Your above comment at BudgieKillers Rfa made me think, and even with the best intentions this will happen. I have been an admin for 2 weeks now, and notice that the content work I would like to do suffers because of the amount of trouble I deal with. Possibly the best advice is to periodically ignore WP:AIV and other response pages/categories and endulge. Agathoclea 22:22, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

Sockpuppet of Peteris Cedrins
Actually, the evidence appears to be pretty conclusive. Click on the links and judge for yourself. It was a full year ago when User:Ghirlandajo first made the connection The whole story: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Suspected_sock_puppets/Peteris_Cedrins - If you can do anything to bring this to conclusion, please help. - Mauco 15:06, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

Budgiekiller's RfA
Thanks for the thoughtful questions. Hopefully, this contribution will help Budgiekiller demonstrate his understanding of process, better than any edit count could. --Dweller 18:46, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

My RFA
Hey, thanks for participating in my recent RFA. You were amongst a number of editors who considered that I wasn't ready for the mop yet and as a consequence the RFA did not succeed (69/26/11). I am extremely grateful that you took the time to advise me on to improve as a Wikipedian and I'd like to assure you that I'll do my level best to develop my skills here to a point where you may feel you could trust me with the mop.

I've been blown away by the level of interest taken in my RFA and appreciate the time and energy dedicated by all the editors who have contributed to it, support, oppose and neutral alike. I hope to bump into you again soon and look forward to serving you and Wikipedia in any way I can. Cheers! The Rambling Man 19:26, 11 January 2007 (UTC) (the non-admin, formerly known as Budgiekiller)


 * Thanks for the additional questions and your feedback throughout. Although the result wasn't what I was looking for, I do appreciate everything that has been said.  The Rambling Man 19:26, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

Володимир Гриньов
Hey, long time! And belated birthday wishes.

Common sense would suggest Hrynyov or Hryniov, but the uncommon combination ьо is just not treated the same way as the Russian ё, even though it represents the same vowel. Hryn’ov, simplified as Hrynov is the Ukrainian transliteration in most systems. We should use this until another version is found in an official web site. I did find "Volodymyr B. Hryn'ov" in the 1998 candidates' list.

But would it be appropriate in this case to also add the Russian Grinyov to the article? —Michael Z. 2007-01-21 22:12 Z 
 * Thanks! I will copy it to the article's talk and let's figure this out there. --Irpen 22:14, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

Continued at User talk:Irpen/archived closed issues 03