User talk:Gnomz007

Started over, comments were aging /Archive1 /Archive2

I fixed the paragraph, now stating the ring was a gift to Putin. Zscout370 (Sound Off) 30 June 2005 19:14 (UTC)

Cool! Gnomz007 30 June 2005 23:32 (UTC)

Imho you made "Quatations" better.. ..and my personal thank you for your improvements in "Putin-related humour"! ellol 15:25, 10 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, I'm glad I did not harm it :)Gnomz007 16:40, 10 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Some "offtopic" :) If you (used to) like science fiction, you can try "Antarktida-online" (by Alexander Gromov and Vladimir Vasilyev), here or here.. Yet it's a book about modern world and a place of a man in it rather than a scifi book. It begins with Antarctic continent having "jumped" to equator(and science fiction ends here(almost)), then scientists on polar stations claimed the formation of Antarctic Republic.. What's the world's immediate reaction.. further reaction.. newly Antarctic civilians.. informational war.. etc.. (the book is in russian, but it's no way a pro-russia book as some scifi of soviet era could be)
ellol 21:05, 19 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

At last - some excuse for me to use Russian. Я правда люблю фантастику, спасибо за ссылку, такой оффтопик меня радует :), и нет меня не донимает, что во многих советских книгах в будущем царит коммунизм. И, Евгений, простите, я немного лично принял комментарий про про-российское, меня не это не расстроит, я просто не люблю точнее пару аспектов политики ВВП, у меня слабые нервы и я весьма импульсивен. От этого я часто веду себя глупо. С цитатами моя "диверсия" не удалась, просто когда появилась эта с "обрезанием" я вспомнил, как она невнятно звучит в оригинале, а по асcоциации мне и остальные перестали нравится(просто Идиот Достоевского наоборот :) ). Кстати мне очень нравятся Ваши поправки к статье - очень сбалансировано. Насчет пенсионеров - попробую написать как-нибудь, я правда наблюдал это уже отсюда, так что не уверен, но здесь шума было много(относительно), но если сравнить как часто Лента.ру пишет про "панику в Америке"(пару раз ну совсем попусту) –

007(?) 22:30, 19 July 2005 (UTC)[reply

]

Раз уж я начал писать, напишу и это - разница между нашими позициями лишь в том, что я пессимист и мне плохо видно отсюда, и меня очень радует, что трезвые люди из России участвуют в Википедии, и данная статья не оставлена на растерзание всяким Ситхам(он не читает кириллицу - хе-хе), а тем более мне :)), нет-нет да и напишу с горечи за последнюю выходку(я - псих - мне можно), про которую написали (вроде сокращения институтов).–

007(?) 23:07, 19 July 2005 (UTC)[reply

]

На случай если я серьёзностью своей кого-нибудь напугал - это я для читабельности ( мама! я ни одного слова не укоротил, кроме ВВП)–

007(?) 23:17, 19 July 2005 (UTC)[reply

]

Sorry for my "pro-russia". i like Strugatsky, Efremov.. in early childhood i liked Belyaev and "kids" works of Bulychev.. But i just hadn't read others Soviet scifi books, and can't talk about them. (my further interests "moved" into authors listed at rusf.ru) On the other hand, the book is unkind to all existing states (yet not countries and not nations)..ellol 22:58, 21 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

If you don't mind, some words in Russian.Я ни в коем случае не считаю вас "психом", наоборот, здравомыслящим человеком, с которым приятно вести беседу.. Если бы вы назвались -- было бы совсем хорошо ;) Кстати, можно просто Женя и на "ты".
Оффтопиков таких могу много предоставить, тут меня надо удерживать, уже не одного приятеля достал :) Вот, к примеру, "Алая аура протопарторга" Е. Лукина(на том же fenzin.org): Россия развалилась на области и районы, интрига ведётся между "правящими элитами" независимых гос-в Баклужино и Лыцка(бывших районов Сусловской области?).. Баклужино возглавляет движение "Колдуны за демократию", а Лыцк -- православные коммунисты-выкресты.. Ничего так :), вспомнилось почему-то. А "Идиота", к стыду, до сих пор не дочитал..
К сож. сам не могу похвастаться корректностью высказываний, и бред из меня порой так и прет.. но есть же кнопка Просмотр, ей нещадно пользуюсь, хоть в рез. и просиживаю вплоть до часа над одним предложением :(
Вот.. на самом деле в учебном году максимум, что удается -- нерегулярно просматривать ленту.ру; поэтому здесь у вас преимущество) Как иллюстрация.. как я узнал про Беслан? Год только начался, полон сил, сижу в "боталке" и ботаю, ничем больше не интересуюсь.. Так вот лектор по экономике сказал в начале лекции.. Пришёл, посмотрел, да, вот штурм закончился.. Хотя это крайний случай, конечно.
Больше не собираюсь надоедать, Женя. (Меня тут некоторое время не будет, так что желаю удачи! все у вас получится!) ellol 22:58, 21 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, re

Instead of simply nominating the article for deletion, try a rewrite first, using the sources that you have found. Look at how I rewrote Harley "SwiftDeer" Reagan using cited sources. Uncle G 17:35:18, 2005-08-11 (UTC)

Thanks for the idea, I will try that soon.–

007(?) 18:32, 11 August 2005 (UTC)[reply

]

Hi. You might find this [1] book interesting. I do not know the original Russian title. It is more recent than the

Thanks, I actually was considering getting this one when you first mentioned it. And...it was published in Russia - literal translation "Чёрная книга коммунизма" gives many goole hits and wow, it is a recomended read for politology courses at MGU. Anyway, English one is even better. I have never needed any proof for myself, I could vouch for many crimes of Communists, just from what my parents told me, but only real research can make this solid. –

007(?

) 01:37, September 2, 2005 (UTC)

This may not satisfy all of your needs, but if you don't show some support, we're not likely to get even this much. — Xiong熊talk* 10:44, 13 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

You do not have to reply this. I've learned from you too, and amazingly, though I'm a disaster of communicator in the end you've got my idea exactly.

I think you could contribute to Wikipedia, humility in editing is a tough thing, being informed is also, I guess you can handle it. As you can see from my user page I'm not a super-important guy here, but I would not give up my account because I like to stop vandals and fix typos, add little trivia and just read, sometimes I give to sticking into discussion I see relevant to myself.–

007(?) 05:04, 23 September 2005 (UTC)[reply

]

Bye--4.152.102.244 21:05, 23 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Прочитал июльскую дискуссию на Talk:First post и не смог удержаться :-)

Тут в знак симпатии принято дарить подсолнухи — держи --tyomitch 17:54, 10 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

An

Regarding your recent comment on Holodomor, I don't think I've moved the quote into intro. In fact I have not reverted Kuban Kazak's edit at all but asked for some explanation. I'd prefer if people would discuss first, then edit, not the other way round. As to our removal of "policy of secrecy" I agree with you that if we have mentioned that NKVD archives are closed, it's obvious that this is due to Russia's policy and we don't need to explain it any further (BTW: It's a shame that these archives are still closed). --Lysy ^(talk) 20:07, 26 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Well the policy can be interpreted differentely, for instance is it a policy of covering up, or is it a policy that classified documents shall remain classified for a period of 25/50/100 years? For some things like the famine of 1933 I will not be surprised that in 2033 we shall find out the truth of what happened. However this can easily be interpreted as Russia's unwillingness to accept responsibility, an argument which has no weight behind it. Thus if you formulate that the archives have not been released because their release date has yet to arrive then fine with me, put the quote back in.

Kuban kazak 20:20, 26 November 2005 (UTC)[reply

]

As I said, I agree that this needs not to be mentioned in the article. The fact is that the archives are closed and we do not need to speculate why they are closed. This said, let me make just a personal comment to your remark here. If there is a policy in Russia that the files should remain classified for 100 years, I wonder what could be the reason behind it. I believe that policy of openness would do much more good for everyone. --Lysy ^(talk) 20:42, 26 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Actually it is highly political discussion - why Russia shall follow the rules of secrecy in USSR, when I hear of Soviet politics I regress to an ape, I can not find a rationale or take it in, some guys stamped 100 yr secrecy, then their government was overthrown and now the new goverment follows the same policy. I was always dissatisfied with insufficient denouncement of Soviet crimes, or are we in the same country.

Anyway I doubt we can confirm on why it is like that, what was to be kept for 100 years, so just mentioning NKVD not opened completely would be enough.

I only removed pure-interpretation-POV. –

007(?) 20:53, 26 November 2005 (UTC)[reply

]

Thanks. That's fine with me. --Lysy ^(talk) 21:36, 26 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/AndriyK has been accepted. Please place evidence on Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/AndriyK/Evidence. Proposals and comments may be placed on Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/AndriyK/Proposed decision. Fred Bauder 02:26, 28 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I would like to express my thanks to all the people who took part in my (failed) RfA voting. I was both surprised and delighted about the amount of support votes and all the kind words! I was also surprised by the amount of people who stated clearly that they do care, be it by voting in for or against my candidacy. That's what Wiki community is about and I'm really pleased to see that it works.
As my RfA voting failed with 71% support, I don't plan to reapply for adminship any more. However, I hope I might still be of some help to the community. Cheers! Halibutt 05:10, 29 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I thought you'd like to know, the page was unprotected (without an ensuing revert spree). I dawdled a bit much, but I've now submitted a revision to the page for everyone's consideration. Please see my comments at

Thank you, I think it is great compromise that you use "East Slavic lands" so I hope it is clear that it is not modern state.

I'm a bit busy in reality so I'm unable to comment/edit much right now ( even no internet connection at home ).–

007(?) 23:09, 1 December 2005 (UTC)[reply

]

Thank you for a kind comment, I actually was both joking and serious at the same time. I wanted to make sure my statement was not misconstrued and I was actually wondering if I sound a bit alien.

I think I have some inclination to use Russian punctualtion rules in my English sometimes -- optional commas is too great resposibility for me after strict comma placement :)–

007(?) 07:10, 5 January 2006 (UTC)[reply

]

I would like to express my thanks to all the good people who spent their valuable time time and effort working on my (failed) RfA voting. Especially for those who actually voted to support me :). Lets move on and make together our corner of the Wikipedia an even greater place abakharev 09:14, 12 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

AndriyK RfAr closed

The

Wikipedia:Naming conflict

, AndriyK is prohibited from moving pages, or changing the content of articles which relate to Ukrainian names, especially those of historical interest. AndriyK is banned for one month from Wikipedia for creating irreversible page moves. Andrew Alexander, AndriyK, and MaryMaidan are warned to avoid copyright violations and to cooperate with the efforts of others to remove copyright violations. Ghirlandajo is warned to avoid incivility or personal attacks.

On behalf of the Arbitration Committee, Kelly Martin (talk) 04:57, 27 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

RE: Oleg of Chernigov

I direct your attention here: Standartization of Kievan Rus names Kazak 07:03, 29 January 2006 (UTC) Oops :) –

007(?) 07:04, 29 January 2006 (UTC)[reply

]

Talk:Khreschatyk

Добрый день. Вероятно я был неправильно Вами понят. Мой английский довольно слаб, мои скромные познания и копьютерные переводчики помогают понимать 95% процентов написанного, но при попытке обьяснится этот процент вероятно заметно ниже.

Я имел ввиду, что скорее всего эту фразу, как и другие мелкие редактирования в этой статье Ирпень неприемлет из-за того, что она исходила от АндрияК, с которым у него персональный конфликт.

Фраза "several short-lived Ukrainian states", на мой взгляд, не вполне уместна в этой статье. Историю нельзя рассматривать как обычный хронологический ряд - какое-то собыетие было short-lived, значит оно незначительно. По этой точке зрения Октябрьская революция тоже должна быть совершенно незначительной, тем не менее это событие оказало влияние на всю историю XX века. УНР или Гетьманат являются намного более значащими для истории, чем приход Деникина, поляков или немцев в Киев. Безусловно для советской историографии они "several short-lived Ukrainian states", но я не думаю, что такое уничижительное определение уместно в английской вики. В целом англ.википедия мне иногда напоминает советские учебники. Например, в статье "Красный террор" целый абзац явно списан с Краткого курса ВКП(б) или чего-то подобного. --Yakudza 23:49, 29 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Простите, я прочитал как нечто в духе "а можно я вашего коллегу чем нибудь стукну". Мои знания о войне в Украине ограничиваются школой, где этот момент рассматривается весьма поверхностно и немного тех книг что "я не съел, так понадкусал" в интернете, потому я с лёгкостью мог пропустить неуместное упрощение.

Я согласен это неприятно то, на чём настаивает Ирпень, но у него зачастую бывают глубоко идущие обоснования, помимо болезненной реакции на AndriyK. Единственное что я вижу, что у каждой стороны видна группировка по государственной принадлежности: украинцы, советские большевики, поляки, немцы. Я также согласен, что не все армии равны по важности, но я не думаю, что Ирпень согласится с этим, что по сути тоже слегка упрощение.(я боюсь что уничтожение всего списка AndriyK было самым компромисным из решений).

Не может быть чтобы у этой фразы не было возможности замещения без такого комментария как "short-lived".

Что касается английской вики и большевистской идеологии, то тут на мой взгляд проблема в том, что в связке (безчисленые американские второй-курс марксисты-любители)-(пользователи пытающиеся отфильтровать вздор, но выросшие в СССР, вроде Mikkalai)-(активные демократичекие деятели)-(отдельные западники с парой книжек на полке, и иногда всё-же пишущие вдор)-(остальные) вектор направлен куда-то в эту сторону, потому что у первых слишком много энергии чтобы искать источники вроде Розы Люксембург, Троцкого и т.д. –

007(?) 00:36, 30 January 2006 (UTC)[reply

]

Thanks for your voting!

Hi, thanks for your voting on my RFA. It has finished with the result 88/14/9, and I am promoted. I am really overwhelmed with the amount of support I have got. With some of you we have edited many articles as a team, with some I had bitter arguments in the past, some of you I consider to be living legends of Wikipedia and some nicks I in my ignorance never heard before. I love you all and I am really grateful to you.

If you feel I can help you or Wikipedia as a human, as an editor or with my newly acquired cleaning tools, then just ask and I will be happy to assist. If you will feel that I do not live up to your expectation and renegade on my promises, please contact me. Maybe it was not a malice but just ignorance or a short temper. Thank you very much, once more! abakharev 07:34, 24 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Unspecified source for Image:GrandDukeDmitryKonstantinovichRomanov.jpg

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

As well as adding the source, please add a proper copyright licensing tag if the file doesn't have one already. If you created/took the picture, audio, or video then the {{

Wikipedia:Image copyright tags

for the full list of copyright tags that you can use.

If you have uploaded other files, consider checking that you have specified their source and tagged them, too. You can find a list of files you have uploaded by following this link. Unsourced and untagged images may be deleted one week after they have been tagged, as described on

chat} 21:35, 14 May 2007 (UTC)[reply

]

NowCommons: File:GrandDukeDmitryKonstantinovichRomanov.jpg

talk) 21:44, 13 March 2009 (UTC)[reply

]

Orphaned non-free image File:Stevens-logo72dpi202cvSMALL.jpg

Thanks for uploading

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

).

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in the

Stefan2 (talk) 18:01, 9 February 2014 (UTC)[reply

]

ArbCom elections are now open!

Hi,
You appear to be eligible to vote in the current

review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. For the Election committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 12:49, 23 November 2015 (UTC)[reply

]