User talk:Ukrained/Archive 1 (Winter 2005-2006)

Hi again. Thanks for the useful edits you made to several articles. If you start new articles or substantially expand the existing ones, please announce them at

Hi, and thank you. Дякую. Ukrained 17:18, 14 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Sure thing! As for the rename vote, may I ask you to read a long discussion the MichaelZ, myself and a couple of others had at

Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Ukrainian_subdivisions. Please start form the chapter "How the city name Днiпропетровськ is spelled in English" and read on to the end. Recently Bryndza commented there in the middle of discussion but please read the page to the end anyway. I am not here to convince you to reconsider your vote. I just want you to see how we arrived to the current naming scheme so that you would not consider its supporters as an anti-Ukrainian mafia, as user:AndriyK professes. Also, you can respond to messages at your own talk. I usually keep an eye on the talk pages of the user with whom I am in communication. Cheers, --Irpen 17:28, 14 December 2005 (UTC)[reply

]

Pleas contact me by e-mail so that we could keap contact.--AndriyK 21:25, 14 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Hi! Радий познайомитися! I'll see what I can do to that voting. But keep in mind that I'm a newbie, not very familiar with WP rules. Feel free to explain my rights (as well as wrongdoings:) ). Best wishes - Ukrained 21:36, 14 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Haven't read the whole discussion yet. So many letters, no images :)... Briefly, Andriy, how much time do I have to decide my opinion? Ukrained 21:55, 14 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

To your comment to Kuban kazak at

talk:Russian architecture, while it is condemnable to bring followers who don't know what they are doing from outside forums, I am afraid that you made your comment without knowing the context of what was going on for a while since AndriyK joined Wikipedia. This became a subject of a scandalous Arbitration filed against this user by many members of the community, that includes the active Ukrainian editors who, prior to his arrival, were able to with reasonable success add to Wikipedia the moderate Ukrainian views on the issues. For more see Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/AndriyK

and its subpages.

Ah, I see, although it seems to be a very complicated issue... Bu t don't let anybody equal the "Maidan" and the "Anti-Orange" (especially in the early months of the latter site, when it has been a platforma for mere provokation against Orange Revolution, OK? You know, it's just suspicious, especially for the newcomer I am. Kuban Kazak must be ashamed and aware of his public image Ціль не завжди виправдовує засоби (: Ukrained 22:30, 14 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Ashamed? No considering that not everyone supported the Orange Revolution and everyone is entitled to a POV. DO I support anti-orange? Well if you have a look in the discussion pages you will not find me there. In principle I try to maintain an apolitical stance but then if someone is going to tilt an article with a political POV, I simply warned that it will be tilted back using numerous methods, of which only ONE is to post requests on unrelated sites. I mean it could have well been Russkiy Obraz, or Bandera.com or RNE or Kavkazcenter...or the French society of plumbers for all I care. The point is that bringing in voters from unrelated sites is not welcome. I chose websites that to me appeared as mirrors of Maidan. Так что давай в будущем стараться воздержаться от лишних замечаний. Ты сам откуда?

Kuban kazak 21:16, 15 December 2005 (UTC)[reply

]

I would accept everything you wrote here, excluding the sentence before the last. Please calm down your tone. Otherwise, the only answer to your Ты сам откуда? question may be Оттуда.:) However, I'm looking forward to the peaceful co-operation. Wishes, Ukrained 22:07, 15 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Ладно раз не прав так не прав, пусть будет по твоему, все не кипитись...но все-таки откуда? If from Kiev say so now, because there is a

Kuban kazak 22:45, 15 December 2005 (UTC)[reply

]

I'm Kyivite, and I love Kyiv metro. I'l see what I can do (regarding the fact that I don't have a photo camera). Ukrained 22:55, 15 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Well that's good because I love metro in general. Серьезно фотоапарата нету, даже старенького Зенита?

Kuban kazak 23:13, 15 December 2005 (UTC)[reply

]

And to your question on how much time you have, you certainly have a couple of days, at least, to read the discussion and decide. --Irpen 22:10, 14 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

OK! It's a really complicated matter there. Ukrained 22:30, 14 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Hi again. First, a suggestion for you. If you want people to be able to get in touch with you, you are better off enabling the "Email this user" function than listing your address (even encrypted) at the front page. Spambots learn to figure the address from @#$%, but it is harder for them to press the "Email this user" button. This is just an advice. You can see my userpage for how I've done it.

While at it, please consider adding the Wikipedia:Babel template to your page. It maybe useful for others looking for a particular language readers, translators. It also speaks about you. If you are a Kievan, I guess you would place something like {{Babel-3|en-2|uk|ru}} but this is of course my guess. Mine is {{Babel-3|en-2|uk-4|ru}} but everyone evaluates his language proficiency himself. Maybe I qualify for en-3 by now :).

Besides. I checked over all your edits yesterday only because you are a newbie. In no way I mean to wiki-stalk you like some people are doing around here. I hope you didn't mind.

Speaking back of Kiev, in addition to Metro, I would love to have a good image of the

OK. Thanks for the advice. Ukrained 15:08, 17 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Also,

I did check that and came to conclusion that it was an intentional nonsense inserted to troll readers. No logic at all. Possibly, written under the influence of some "recreational substance". Every each of his about 5 contributions is a senseless grammar-breaking text (except of one obscene photo). Definitely a vandal. Ukrained 18:08, 20 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, please do engage into discussions at talk if you have time! Thanks again for your edits! --Irpen 23:35, 19 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Dear Ukrained,

Of course, I have nothing against Ukraine, and I corrected only a couple of things in favour of balance and historic accuracy:

1. the Eastern Urkaine was no way supporting Hitler, so I specified that it was *Western* Ukraine that had hopes on fascists to get independance.
2. During the famine of 30ties, Kazakhstan lost about 2.5 million people, southern Russia 2 million, and other republics about 0.5 million. All those facts are basics of history of those countries. Reasonable calculations of Urkainian's losses, as was mentioned in the article, are about 2.5-3 million. With this, cumulative USSR famine losses in the 30ties are about 8 million

The information that the whole Urkaine hopes on Hitler, wanting to be separate country, and the idea of representing that Urkaine was almost the only subject bad will of the evil "moscali" (to be fair, there was a Georgians and Jews in the government, yet there is nationalism against Russians in Ukraine, unfortunately), rephrasing what You said, "indirectly supports the pro-Urkaininan and nationalistic-driven POV - which is unuseful and inflammatory here on WP".

If You or Your collegues reverted my balance additions, then I would like to ask for the basis on which it is asserted that the whole Urkaine, including like 20 million Russian people that lived there by census in the late 30s, hoped on Hitler to get independance, and why Ukraine is presented as nearly the only victim of famine of 30ties.

If applicable sources of this information will not be supplied, I will have to initiate the process of locking the article with cleansing it of all the unsubstantiated nationalistic POV. Activist's articles of "RUH" members and the likes will not be accepted as legitimate source.

So I am suggesting now that my editions would stay. Within time, I will provide links for the information I cited here. Honestly, this will be fair and balanced history of Urkaine then.

Sincerely, user:DenisRS.

Guys, may I ask you to conduct this discussion at the article's talk as most of the article's related discussions should be conducted. Others would then be able to see, the arguments of each side. --Irpen 03:22, 20 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Moving discussion there - Ukrained 18:14, 20 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Please check my message at

User:Antidote is involved in a number of edit wars and has caused disurption to various East European, Catholic, and Jewish lists and is probably involved in multiple voting. See Wikipedia:Requests_for_comment/Antidote. I would appreciate if you could endorse the request for comment at Wikipedia:Requests_for_comment/Antidote#Other_users_who_endorse_this_summary or post an outside view.--Pecher 19:56, 25 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Pecher. I'll see what I can do. But the criteria for that list is rather complicated question. I don't have a definite opinion on it yet. Thanks for alerting the issue for me. Ukrained 16:56, 26 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

A couple of questions. Are you sure that Luhansk Oblast is the only not electrified rail in UA? I remember from a while ago, that in the West of Ukraine all the suburban transit was on diesel trains and not Elektrichkas for the very reason of the lack of electrification. Of course things might have changed such that I missed the news.

Another question is about rapid trains. You wrote about Rivne line. I also know about the rapid Kharkiv-Kiev train. How many are there? Also, are you sure this info belongs to Elektrichka rather than Ukrainian Railways article. I just don't know whether it is correct to say that these rapid intercity trains are electrichka's legacy, since the latter has always been perceived as suburban rail transit. I don't know the answers, just some thoughts here. --Irpen 02:35, 28 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Irpen, I'm moving discussion to the Talk:Elektrichka, answering your questions there. Ukrained 10:37, 28 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Ukrained, I've made an image as you have asked. It's available here: Image:Kiev_map_numbers.png I can provide some other versions, as you need, also. So just ask ;) Cheers. mno 04:53, 28 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Thank you very much for that. However, the numbers do not correspond either to

Subdivisions of Kiev. And, if you could replace numbers with small-fonted names, it would be just great. Ukrained 11:01, 28 December 2005 (UTC)[reply

]

Here you are: Image:Kiev_map_english.png. I made a few corrections from the numbered version in the raion borders, also. If you need any more, feel free to ask. mno 19:39, 28 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, I know what you mean! That's what I keep asking myself. I get online for about 10-15 minutes in the morning, then during lunch (while I eat), and then sometimes in the evening for about an hour. I don't get in the amount of practice I want each day, but I don't think Wikipedia has a lot to do with it. I average about an hour and a half per day, but my goal is about four hours per day. I was thinking about putting a notice on my userpage about being available only for a half hour at nights, because that an off-time I give myself, but I'm not sure. I'm hoping to become an administrator maybe in February, and I'm not sure if I could be an admin and violinist. (In other words, if they would want an administrator who could only work that short amount of time.) Anyway, I'm using up more time...a valuable resource which attracts many robbers...--

. --Irpen

What is your problem with people who support this article? Maybe you see no relevance with it, other people do also agree with you, but it is also clear others do not.

Please stop calling anyone who supports this article a troll and please stop calling for people to be banned just because they disagree with you (and because you don't like their user names). You claim supporting the above article is provocation, but no one is being more provocaive in regards to this article than you.

I'm hear to ask you to stop trying to cause an argument in respct to the deletion notice placed on this article and show some respect for the deletion process of wikipedia. Let it take it's course with regards to this article. It my well be deleted, it might not be, but that decision is not one for either of us to make on our own, but instead for the wikipedian community to make togehter. Evil Eye 13:12, 3 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

A provocation is always designed as "another POV" :). I hope this is clear for everybody despite the denials of provocateurs. BTW, may be you have a POV on renaming the planet or a mankind in English? If you would, should we treat such an opinion of yours with respect? Ukrained 13:21, 3 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ukrained, please talk with your opponents more civilly. The rude tone itself actually prevents your point from being heared. --Irpen 22:33, 3 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I don't understand why you are listing alternate tranlsiterations of

Seems like uoy wasn't actually reading my notes on the RfD. I've listed only semi-orphaned (linked from nowhere) redirects with non-existing spelling/pronunciation. While I left 3 or 4 other redirects intact (see "What links here" on Skovoroda page). Ukrained 19:59, 4 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I read your notes but people may come to articles not just from other articles but from the search string or from clicking on the "Random article" link. The rule of thumb with redirects, is only to delete the harmful, POV or the deceiving ones. --Irpen 20:13, 4 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you, Irpen, but I'm afraid I don't deserve these words. So I dedicate this award to my native city of Kyiv, describing which is my duty, honor and pleasure, and also to DDima, the editor who started the article and inspired us to such a simple and deep topic. Ukrained 21:52, 11 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Well, let's the

Kiev, or Kyiv if you prefer so, accept your dedication :). I have a couple of ideas for more Kiev-related DYKable articles. I will come up with them soon at the Portal's notice boards (pls remember to keep them on you watchlist). You are welcome to propose them too. Please note, however, that because of DYK policy time constraint (72 hours only after the creation of the article), avoid starting the 2-3 sentence placeholder articles. The process should be fast. New article appears with an interesting trivia fact, the article gets quickly and roughly polished and proposed for DYK. There were only several of UA-related DYK's yet and they are very effective to bring Ukrainian topics to prominence and much less time-consuming than FA's of which we only have one. --Irpen 22:56, 11 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. abakharev abakharev 14:07, 12 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Don't mention, Alex. Just for the record: I voted "Neutral". Ukrained 19:19, 12 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Dear Ukrained. Frankly, I appreciate your work here. An extra pair of hands and an extra pair of eyes is always helpful to us, especially in a state when there are so few editors concerned about Ukraine and a good quarter of those who join bring net-negative contribution by starting the naming wars, accusing opponents in all sorts of sins and otherwise wasting time of those who are prepared to contribute to articles, but have instead to do the damage control of the actions of those fellows. I do not consider you to be one of them. We managed to agree on things and civilly disagree on others. That's fine of course. However, I noticed that you tend to react too harshly to disagreements, assume bad faith of opponents and react uncivilly. Not once I told you that this is very counterproductive. Wikipedia's talk pages are not usenet newsgroups where the idea is to geth the message through in the most voicefull form smearing the opponents if necessary. We discuss the articles and try to find how to improve them. I suggest that you always keep that in mind. Some well known trolls must be dealt with reprimands, warning and through administrative actions but until you have strong reasons to beleive that your opponent is one of them, you should remember to assume good faith and act accordingly. I am saying all this here not to get pleasure of lecturing you but to avoid future article disagreements getting ugly. Your tone of mine and several talk pages is unhelpful.

Now, to the DYK submission. What I did with it may be found here. This was preceded by Michael's reformatting of the original submission. As you can see, after Michael's expansion (that took place on Jan. 9) the proposed DYK entry had so little in common with the original entry, that it was practically a new suggestion. As such, in my edit I moved it without altering to the new date (Jan 9), the date of Michael's reformatting it. The DYK-keeper admin then contacted me to point out that the entries are sorted not by the date of submissions but by the date of the article's creation. This is done for his convenience in selecting the featured entries among the proposed one since the article creation date is an important factor and the proposal submission isn't. At the same time he contacted Michael to let him know that when the entry suggestion is rephrased, both the new and the old variants should be presented.

My only other edit of that DYK submission after that was this image substitution. I inserted the image that you proposed yourself BTW since it most accurately represents the subject of the article.

I hope you are now satisfied by the complete information that you asked for. In the future, to find out who did what was done and by whom, you just need to go to the article's or talk page's history and use the "Compare selected versions" button. --Irpen 21:12, 14 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I did not want to edit without discussing this with you first. While I beleive that the cosmonauts may be Soviet and Ukrainian at the same time, I don't think they can be Russian and Ukrainian cosmonauts, do they? I mean "Ukrainian born Russian cosmonaut" is fine. But a Ukrainian cosmonaut for someone who flew under the Russian flag only sounds a misnomer to me (not under the Soviet flag).

Well, you should take a look at my CFD suggestion few days ago. I'd like to see the category deleted or renamed, but community opposed. If I got the decision right, they suggest an ethno-geographic meaning of Ukrainian in the name (and purpose) of the category. So I started fulfill this. At least we can develop an issue of "Ukrainians in Soviet military" in that way (which is a notable subject in Western ethnic studies). Ukrained 20:38, 18 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Also, please take a look at recent arguing between myself and AndriyK at

I'll take a thorough look at RU architecture. I reverted the anon edit mostly in a principle. Ukrained 20:38, 18 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Not at all was I trying to show off and I am sorry I confused you. AFAIK="As far as I know", OTOH= "On the other hand". There is also an "IMHO" which I've seen even russified. It simply means "In my humble opinion". There are plenty of more abbreviations, hundreds actually, but I do not use the others. HTH, --Irpen 22:36, 19 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
P.S. HTH=Hope this helps

Saw the note you left at Duca's page. Allow me to comment. First of all, I've seen this user in the past. He is nothing but a troll and trying to talk reason to him is wasting one's time. He may or may not be a sockpuppet of

And a more general comment. I've been around here for months and you may be surprised to hear but it is a fact that usually it is much easier to find a compromise with certain too opinionated editors from the East of UA than with some too opinionated individuals of our western brothers' heritage. Not only our Romanian friends but other friends and supporters of our independence from a somewhat to the north of Romania are often very difficult to convince in anything. You may be surprised to find out that there isn't much fighting with what you called "Russian imperial propaganda on the UA pages" precisely because our neighbors to the East are usually rather reasonable and accommodating to the presentation of the moderate Ukrainian POV. I don't want to generalize over all Romanian and Polish editors of course but you are too fast labeling the Russian editors. I know exactly who you mean and I can show you many articles where we were able to find the compromise with precisely that editor, who, OTOH, contributed wealth of info to many UA-topics. --Irpen 22:55, 19 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I've noticed that somebody insists on keeping a Polish Army link in

Khreschatyk

(probably in case if we doubt that Polska has an army:)). If this point spreads through other pages, I'm going to tell him (and everyone) few Halychian jokes about Wojsko Polskie :) Although I like PL and Poles very much. I also appreciate your work on Bukovina stuff.

As for the RU-concerned editors, in particular, that Ghirla, let me disagree. I can show something too (if you insist): his huge RfC page, his talk posts, Kazak's sincere POV confessions (fortunately, kept mostly on talk) etc. And I can clearly see the (one of the) reason(s) for creating Pochaiv Lavra - presently the RU shauvenist outpost in Western UA, where tricolored "kazaks" demonstrate their neglegence of the very existence of independent Ukrainian state. I guess Ghirla should develop the pages on few unimportant MP churches in Crimea. Merely to promote the places where Sabodan's "priests" preach their parish to wait until the Poles/Americans/Jews-invented "Ukraine" "comes to an end":(.

I can disagree with some details of AndriyK's point, or with his methods, but I mostly share his concerns. The very same I can say about AlexPU - an important UA contributor that left for wikibreak with a serious and not entirely groundless statement (of course he's an aggressive filthy-mouth guy). The problem DOES exist, Irpen, and it's not entirely about editors. It's about a trend, a bias, a perekos throughout WP. Ukrained 23:46, 19 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The importance of

Ghirla is often rude, hardly tolerant and very opinionated but an extremely knowledgeable and committed editor. When you see a perekos, bring it up case by case and we will try to address it. AndriyK's "concerns"? I would rather say an "agenda". AlexPU's "Not entirely groundless statement"? Could be. But this can be said about most statements, even the nonsense ones. The point is that some editors are impossible to work with. I tried and this is a very painful conclusion. Everyone has a POV and it's fine. Not everyone is possible to work with and this is the most important thing. Our goal here is to build encyclopedia and the RfC you recalled missed the point entirely IMO. I told Halibutt the same thing when he started the RfC.

Back to the main issue, the "problem that does exist" about Russian Imperialist propaganda. This reminds me an eternal talk about "Ukrainian nationalism" often brought up to frighten people and rally them. The truth is that both are rather on the fringe of the mainstream views within both nations. The editors with fringe views are often very active, but seeing the resistance of the wiki-community they, usually, burn out or go to usenet groups or other forums where they find a better audience. --Irpen 00:23, 20 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The Russian imperialism is "rather on the fringe of the mainstream views within RU nation?

Are you kidding me, Irpen? Or the readers of my talkpage? I want everyone going to tell fairy-tales here to make a respective warning in the beginning of his text. Even if tales are put down by such a skilled and polite writer as you are  ;).

It's just opposite! RU shauvenism is established and encouraged by the state policy of RF, both domestic and foreign (namely of Putin). And, since they have no democracy and TV freedom at all (while we have very little), what may the mainstream view be, if not imperialistic shauvenism? While in UA excessive liberalism and (ocassionally stupid) tolerance is the state policy. That was the layout of my POV. But. It IS NOT a usenet group indeed. So I'll try to support my point with balanced editing, links and citations.

As for your point, I'm afraid that your "moderate Ukrainian POV" is amusingly moderate as for me ;) Best wishes, Ukrained 21:35, 21 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I was not talking about the state propaganda but rather of the views of everyday people. As for the rest, you are starting to wear me down with your provocative statements, not quite direct attacks on myself, but close to that. Anyway, after AndriyK my skin grew thicker. --Irpen 21:56, 21 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I responded to your recent message at my own talk. Please make sure the section headings reflect their content. --Irpen 22:13, 25 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Just an illustration about the attitudes of our non-eastern neighbors that you erroneously thought of as easier to deal with than the eastern ones. Check this. And note, that this is not the most ultra-nationalist editor from the respective community. There are editors there with by far stronger and

more interesting ideas. Do you remember of any Russian editors at wiki calling to "cancel" the RU-UA border treaties as talk pages? I don't. --Irpen 02:36, 27 January 2006 (UTC)[reply

]

Irpen, take a look at recent edit of your knowledgeable and commited friend. If he's commited to strippping UA history cat. from as much info as he can, should we appreciate his knowledge? In this situation, I would prefer an American schoolgirl able only to correct my typos and grammar, but open, co-operative and civil, rather than such a knowledgeable POV-pusher. Ukrained 13:00, 20 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yet again you "попал пальцем в небо". These were excessive cats. The Cat:Soviet-German War already belongs to the USSR cat via several subcat links. And there are no History of RU or History of UA cat tags in other battles of the war that occured in Russian or Ukrainian territorry. Check Battle of Rostov (1941), Battle of Smolensk (1941), Battle of Kiev (1941), Battle of Uman, Siege of Leningrad, Battle of Moscow, etc. Excessive cats is bad style. If some other battles have excessive tags, we should strip them from there too. Of course if there exists a "History of the particular city" cat already, the battle belongs there too. There is no "History of Kharkiv" category as of yet. How many times should I be asking you to not assume bad faith everytime you find a disagreeable edit? --Irpen 17:15, 20 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

P.S. And that reminded me that there is a "History of Kiev city" cat and I added it to the

Kharkiv University. You are welcome to take on this task or whatever else you'd like to do. --Irpen 17:23, 20 January 2006 (UTC)[reply

]

Please do not forget to anounce the articles you create and the articles you spot at the portal's board. --Irpen 00:43, 21 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Please chill out now! Your "testing" of Alex Bakharev is inappropriate. It is up to him to get involved in the disputes of others and not you or me to challenge him on that. I already commented on Kazak's page before you posted your message to Sasha. I will remove yours from his page and it is up to you to restore it of course. But I am telling you for a dozen's time to cool down. This is getting tiresome. Think a bit (at least 10 minutes) before posting an angry response. I hope your useful contributions will continue and we will not have to return to this question. I very much hope so. --Irpen 20:30, 28 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
P.S. please note the timing of my note at kazak's page (20.13) and see that it could not have anything to do with a nasty message you posted at Sasha's talk (20:25), so that you can see that they have no connection. There are enough ethical users here and you don't need to go around with embarassing challenges. Please get back to editing articles.
P.P.S. I hope you find my explanation at talk:UA lang satisfactory. Maybe the wording could be improved (I though of it already and could not find a better one yet) but I explained everything in detail. How about "Andrew's descent" article for DYK (the trivia piece about the Richard the Lion's heart" castle being present at Kiev street)? I will make a proposal at UA portal in half-an-hour or so. Please don't start an article yet but let me know what you think. --Irpen 20:37, 28 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

To be answered later Ukrained 21:23, 28 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

To your recent posts at other people's talk, let me suggest that the right way is

Do you know whose edit this might be? --Irpen 21:08, 28 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Mine, purely incidental (my connection failed in the middle of the changing the page). BTW, the talk page of that article says I was going to do that. Please sign it for me (I still don't know how). And Irpen, I want you to make all possible official actions against that and every each edit of mine ASAP. Thanks, Ukrained 21:23, 28 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I have no intention to take any official action and I don't think any are warranted anyway. --Irpen 21:25, 28 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Please note that

continual questions with obvious or easy to find answers is consider "Pestering" a form of WP:Trolling. If you persist, I can easily find the quotes that connect the transfer with the anniverary, but we can both find a better use for our time. But if you will persist, I will find you quotes. --Irpen 07:15, 13 February 2006 (UTC)[reply

]

Dear Irpen. First of all, why don't you be more exact in editing disputes? You implied the terms pestering and trolling, but forgot to inform the readers of my talk of what exactly article do you mean :(

Second. I don't really find the question you dispute an obvious one. As you evidently know, Ukrainian historians believe that the Crimea was transferred mainly to populate it with Ukrainians (after Tatars mass deportation) and to support its collapsing post-war economy. This sufficiently referenced version should be presented in the article. Stating merely the gesture is pretty much the same that explain Nazi's invasion of Poland with reaction on the Glivice frontier provokation. Otherwise, the "gesture/gift" version should be extinguished (to achieve neutrality). So I'm going to desribe both. I'll find my quotes, you find yours (I DO insist :) ). Best wishes, Ukrained 09:40, 13 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Moving discussion to Talk:Crimea#1954 Transfer

I generally welcome constructive criticism at my talk, but messeges such as "Don't be an unjust LIAR" are not constructive, meaningles and spoil the climate. As an exception, I responded but I reserve the right to remove such stuff from my talk without even answering it. I asked you many times to not react all so strongly all the time. Please heed to my advise. --Irpen 21:32, 14 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You know, you were the one to attack me with your unjust accusations :(. And "remove" anything you wish: this is WEST, this is America, every edit of yours, and counteredit, is recorded and public. Let the force be with you (if not truth :). Ukrained 21:57, 14 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Where did I attack you? As for "recorded it public", yes and this is very importnat to remember. --Irpen 22:02, 14 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

To your question whether there were ever Russian users banned, perm or tmp, I decided to answer. There are only three/four common ways to get banned:

1. by ArbCom (there was only one ArbCom case that involved any of two nations. One needs to be totally over-the-board to reach an ArbCom and this happened just once. The ArbCom case is judged not by a majority but by the most respected members elected there. You may want to think that the massive soliciting of ArbCom by a cabal of conspirators may influence it but I haven't seen that happening even a single time. ArbCom are very adamant about rules and procedures, its members try to build a wall between themselves, as arbitrators, and they meticulously check the evidence and the diffs. They judge based on the evidence only. Besides, none of the compliants advocated for a ban. I even mildly opposed it. I requested a ruling that would prevent any software abuse and undiscussed terminology substitution later backed by absentee voters/meatpuppets. It is ironic that the self-proclaimed patriot of Ukraine and a crusader for his motherland uses absentee voter trick to rig the election. Sounds too familiar in view of recent History od UA
2. by violating
   3RR
   (there certainly were such cases but it doesn't really count because a block is almost automatic and the community won't be able to help a 3RR violator even if it would have tried)
3. for sockpuppetry and using open proxies (I am not aware of such blocks either for Russians or for Ukrainians. The only sock block that I know of (being actually inolved in its discovery) was of Romanian user)
4. by an admin for clear violation of a soft m:Don't be a dick rule. The latter rule is very soft on purpose and, therefore, to be clearly in a violation of it one really has to be a dick. Also, such bans are likely to be challenged as controversial, thefore admins usually impose them only when there is no doubt. But these are admin discretion bans and, therefore, are most instructive to study.

In connection with a latter, I suggest you review the block log of user:Nixer. While not such a bad guy, he is very short tempered, impatient, engages into revert wars, and gets excited all to easy. While some of his edits are of narrow specialty nature (like arms and ranks), some were to political articles where he pushed rather questinable views. However, note the familiar names in the blockers list. Does it look like Russians keep pet trolls to advance the Great Russian cause? This is dramatically different from say, the block log of user:Molobo who is considered too valuable by his compatriots to remain blocked and there you will see him being unblocked rather than blocked by his compatriots. Irpen 09:11, 18 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I know that nothing may convince certain Ukrainians that there is no evil Russia behid everything but I am not yet sure that you are one of them. I am not anymore asking you to cool down because it seems to me a futile effort to try to achieve, but since I find most of your contributions useful, I would simply like you to be better informed since my no means I want the scarse number of editors who actually write something for Ukrainian topics to get even smaller. As I told you earlier, the difference between a troll and an opinionated and, even sometimes disruptive, but a legitimate user is that the latter also creates content (like your nemesis1 or even nemesis2). Some actions of such non-troll's are sometimes trollish but this is what I call a non-troll who is trolling (verb) rather than a troll (noun). Good luck with your edits and lets hope that we both won't troll. Finally, Alex Bakharev, by agreeing for RfA is a fair game to spit on but your comment to node ue is highly offensive and inapropriate IMO. Please remove it if you change your mind. If this should not have been written by me, pls let me know. Otherwise, feel free not to respond. This time I came here to inform, rather than reprimand you. So, let's just edit. Regards, --Irpen 09:11, 18 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Dear Irpen, thank you for recognizing the fact that I have both right and ratio for questioning Alex Bakharev's neutrality towards RU users. Too bad you didn't show such recognition here, insultingly and irrelevantly commenting my actions instead of the nominee. How do you expect me to be cool this way?

Second. Are you accusing me of trolling? A serious groundless accusation you know. So I ask you to file an RfC for me. It's not that I am an attention whore. But there's so much undeserved critism of me in your various posts that somebody should formalize all that rant.

I reject all your accusations of spitting and offencing on that RfA page. I was civilly and openly campaigning against Alex. Again, file an RfC or at least draw some third-party user here to back your accusations (not Kazak, Ghirla or Alex:). Or, renounce of those accusations to prove your civility.

To achive peace and consistency, why don't we bilaterally reshuffle that RfA page, changing both your, Kazak's and my comments (not votes)?

Ukrained 13:22, 18 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, and just in case if you overestimating yourself: you can't drive me out of Wikipedia and scarse number of editors who actually write something for Ukrainian topics to get even smaller (even if you wanted to :). Sorry if I misunderstood that your sentence. Ukrained 13:31, 18 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Pls see my email. --Irpen 16:48, 18 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ukrained, this is not the first time you misinterprete my comments. As far as your article edits go, I have no problem with what you do even though we often disagree on articles. As far as your statements at talk pages go, the big problem I see is the frequent example of your

Irpen, I clearly said Sorry if I misunderstood that your sentence :) Ukrained 05:14, 21 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

And I am tired to have to explain to you things. Please, learn to assume good faith. I hope, this was the last undeserved accusation I've heard from you. --Irpen 05:52, 21 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Zdrastuy! Information about the Black Sea Fleet in both Russian and English can be found at their official site, [1]. Information about the composition of the Ukrainian Navy, see World Navies Today. κаллэмакс 22:24, 14 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Thank you very much. Especially regarding the fact that I was right. Found at least one inaccuracy: [дивизия] Error: {{Lang-xx}}: text has italic markup (help) and [дивизион] Error: {{Lang-xx}}: text has italic markup (help) are a little bit different things (which you couldn't know). So I'm going to search for correct EN analogues for each. Any ideas? And thanks for UA Navy. Ukrained 11:03, 15 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Moving discussion to Talk:Black Sea Fleet#Ships list

Hi, with reference to your message on my talkpage, hardly 20 people have the check user facility to determine sock puppetry and I am not one of them ;). You should try

It would actually help you to at least appear a somewhat serious person if you give a little thought to what you are saying to avoid talking a plain nonsense. When you write about

user:Kuban kazak "corresponded" to him at 10:09 of the same day that is 6 hours later. What next. Maybe one of them is my sockpuppet or I am one of theirs? I wonder what would be your next bizarre invention. --Irpen 19:23, 22 February 2006 (UTC)[reply

]

Hey, Irpen: You are also aggressively fishing for sockpuppets. :) So, be polite to the other fishers. :)

For example, as far as I can see, Yodo was not banned for being Bonny sock, but only as a suspected sockpuppet (no sufficient evidence exists, etc.), and for massively disruptive behavior. I share your claim on Bonny/Yodo, but "being" and "suspected" ar etow different things. (Or may be I missed something and you didn't put all the links in).

I enjoyed looking over your daily productive edits, but recently you are just focusing on the election too much, imho. And, btw, why have not you applied for adminship? You are a reasonable guy, and patient (mostly) :), and as I can see, you were around for a long time.

What is "plain nonsense" for you, is not necessary the case for others. I would not claim that

Kuban Cossack and Kazak are different based on their editing pattern over the last year. Only one of them really loves metro :) Uapatriot 00:13, 23 February 2006 (UTC)[reply

]

Gee thanks :) 1985 in Leningrad, first time I went down an escalator and saw the underground world...an impression which lasts a lifetime that was...--

Kuban Cossack 11:06, 25 February 2006 (UTC)[reply

]

Uapatriot, Yodo is a sock beyond a reasonable doubt. See this and RfA's talk for what he did at the previous Alex's RfA. Two cossacks are so clearly different, that such an accusation cannot be made for any reason other than to add another circus-like twist to the RfA. I did not say "solely" because of 6 hr diff. They are totally different, but to check that, others need to look for their contributions or to have seen them in the past. I don't remember seing them reverting in sinc, like user:Dovbush for instance either. But the travel in time is simply the most obvious thing in Ukrained accusatory message.

I am glad you like my edits. I simply had too little time for WP in the last days but I will return to active editing as soon as I can. Of that little time I had, I decided to spend as much as necessary on the RfA, because I feel Sasha was wronged in the previous RfA by trolls/socks and the RfA was closed in haste with a questionable decision, which I am glad Sasha didn't challenge. And I saw this trolling starting to happen all over again. If anyone is worthy of adminship around here, it is him first of all, due to his commitment to WP, to neutrality, good head and unquestionable ethics.

I will respond to the rest later, when I have more time, and, perhaps, at your own talk since this is unrelated to the issue. --Irpen 05:42, 23 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

On the contrary I will go for the RCU and put myself there to prove to this person that дружба с собственной крышой очень помогает. --

Kuban Cossack 19:35, 22 February 2006 (UTC)[reply

]

FYI. --Irpen 03:10, 25 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. You marked the Polish language as disputed. From what I know there are about 4.000 Poles living on Crimea and some Sunday schools for teaching the language to children from that group. There is also a Society of Crimean Poles that works since 1998. It isn't a big group, but I think it could stay if Armenians don't have a larger presence. --Molobo 18:13, 22 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Your info was a surprise for me. I didn't know we have such a big Polish minority in Crimea. Although it's strongly possible. So I downgraded my tepmlate and asking you to replace it with your links.

However, the sentence may need further rewording. You see, I don't think the Polish is really spoken there (as well as Armenian and Greek) only because it is intensively studied. I believe there are only 3 spoken languages in Crimea: Russian, Tatar and Ukrainian. So what would you say if we described Poles and others as minority, avoiding the issue of "speaking" respective languages? Of course you can (and should) add (or rather Wikilink) your info on the Polish diaspora's activities.

BTW, I believe Armenians do have a larger presence, at least in sense of retaining their identity. It is a traditional ethnic minority of Crimea, and they've got some returning privileges after Stalin's deportation. But it doesn't really matter regarding what I said above. Ukrained 12:50, 23 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Moving discussion to Talk:Crimea#Crimea and Polish language

Hi. Regarding this edit, where you requested references, believe me, you do not want to do it, it's a Pandora's box. The issue of UPA is extremely delicate among Poles and there are heaps of research, both credible and completely fantastic. What I'm going to do is to try to rephrase the sentence a little and remove the citation tag. I would like to sincerely suggest that you do not readd it. If this is still bothering you, the much better way will be to discuss it in the article's talk page. It is probably the most difficult issue, I have encountered so far on English wiki and I'm not sure how this should be handled, especially with the anonymous trolls around. Peace. --_Lysy^talk 20:12, 24 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted irrelevant comment from my userspace Ukrained 21:02, 24 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

And I quote you BTW, I guess erasing/archiving that text should be qualified as hiding evidence of Wikirules breaking. from my userspace... (which is going to have a bit of cleanup now that someone can't follow rules which he sets for others) --

Kuban Cossack 21:46, 24 February 2006 (UTC)[reply

]

As I said, this topic is extremely difficult. It is so easy to find true or fabricated examples of how cruel the UPA, AK, Soviets, Nazis and who not, were in Western Ukraine. It is also extremely emotional especially for those, whose families perished. --Lysy^talk 20:46, 24 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Lysy. Sorry for delaying my answer. Now to the topic. As for the first my tag (about Poles attitude), it was purely a matter of principle. I DO believe that sentence is correct (except of the POV phrase on tortures). Cause I've been to Poland like many Ukrainians. However not all readers of WP have. So, i believe such passages should be referenced to public opinion polls if possible. I won't oppose either keeping or tagging that passage. But can we downgrade the emotion advantage of the phrase?

As for the second passage (regardless of UPA itself): I think it's biased and uncompleted. I REALLY don't know if pre-war Polish govt was commiting any atrocities. But I believe the war-time Polish insurgents were. Don't you think that is the most possible explanation for UPA? However, I don't have references for this so far. So, If you and some Ukraine-related editors insist, OK. I'll look for sources to prove my vision and contact the article's talk.

As you can see, I'm the last one to open Pandora boxes (whatever you meant by that). However, let us all remember that unbalanced encyclopedia is not an encyclopedia at all. If just looking like unbalanced, it's another attraction for vandals. That's where the real Pandora box is (not in my cautious summarized edits :). Regards, Ukrained 22:08, 24 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Conserning the interwar time, I have never seen any serious writing implying the atrocities against Ukrainians in the, however nationalist Second Polish Republic. Cultural suppression and assimilation? Yes, but no atrocities. Therefore, I removed the "fact" template user:Ukrained added. It is up to a challenger to give refs that claim atrocities, not the other way around.

I've seen mentions of brutality during the suppression of

Moving discussion to Talk:Ukrainian Insurgent Army.

This is the official (although funny :) section. As seen from above section, and in a context of

I could not help to agree, my wife is from Rovno, and when I was there with her family I heard more than a couple of the most horrible strories about the UPA. Like how her grandmother watched as the UPA executed her parents in front of her eyes, or how her grandfather was wounded in UPA ambush whilst walking his little sister home, the nine year girl was shot dead on the spot. In order to save the teenager the NKVD captain, whilst driving him to the hostpital gave his own blood. I think this perfectely says about who are the real heroes for the Volhynians. --

Kuban Cossack 20:32, 24 February 2006 (UTC)[reply

]

After I deleted the text as irrelevant in my userspace, Mr.Kazak demanded it to be restored so that evidence of his wrongdoing is kept (see above). Well... that wouldn't be the first alleged breach by this user. So who am I to oppose anyway? :)))) Ukrained 22:36, 24 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

P.S. Please nobody leave a NKVD P.R. on my talk again (unless you're confessing to me :). Ukrained 22:36, 24 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]