User talk:KPbIC

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

KPbIC is taking a short wikibreak to get ready for exams and will be back on Wikipedia once the exams are over.

Contents 1 Kiev metro 2 Kuban Kazak reverts on Kiev Metro 3 Imperial propaganda in progress 4 Gomel 5 Maladzechna 6 Kuban cossack 7 POV in History of Christianity in Ukraine 8 Template:Exchange Rate 9 Your post on Ezhiki's user talk 10 Ukraine 11 Hero Cities 12 Naming Conventions 13 Historical Ukrainian Regions 14 Brest 15 Ivan Plyushch 16 Template:Hero Cities 17 Rules proposal (with rationale) 18 Ukrainization 19 DYK 20 Was it worth it? 21 DYK 22 Fair use rationale for Image:FP120891.gif 23 Image:Tkachenko.jpg 24 Your input is requested 25 Lack of logic and respect to others... 26 Moves 27 Anti-Ukrainian mafia? *chuckle* 28 WP:ANI 29 З Новим Роком 30 З Різдвом Христовим і з Новим Роком!

[edit] Kiev metro

Подлый ты человек, [1], не стыдно бред нести?--Kuban Cossack 20:26, 30 April 2006 (UTC)

I think user:134 would have been kind of cool, but KPb|C is fine as well if our colleague wishes to use it. As for the article conflict, I commented on the 3RR board and I hope there won't be any admin actions. That Kazak self-reverted was a wise step IMO. I will comment in the issue itself at the article's talk.

134, it understandably annoyes the editor when he writes articles and others come just purge stuff from there and leave, even if others are right (I am not saying you are right here either, just pls understand the situation). Yes, Kazak doesn't own the article, but it would be nice if you helped add to the article rather than just censor the work of the main valuable editor who writes on the Metro of your native city. Don't step into the shoes of AndriyK who roamed into the whole bunch of articles others, mainly myself, wrote and made a small disastrous POV edits, be it Khreschatyk, Chernihiv, Beregynia stupid edit war or Verkhovna Rada building. There is no wiki-law against such habbits, it's just annoying and almost unethical, if you ask me. Compare it to my "intrusion" to AndriyK's Vasyl Stus. At least, I added and restyled the article, not only replaced the concentration camp by a penal colony. Please think about it, OK? --Irpen 22:03, 30 April 2006 (UTC)

Hope we agree that wikipedia is just an encyclopedia, it's not a board or a tool to express author's personal opinion to the rest of the world. If somebody forgets it a moment, and let his personal opinion sneak in, and then became angry if it's corrected, then at the end whose mistake that is?

Or, let me put it defferentl. It may be "the main valuable editor" who put his POV in, or it may be a "censor" who is trying to put his POV in. Should the first be given some kind of parole to put his POV just because he wrote the rest of the article?

All I am saying, is that KK would have treated your edits differently if you helped add the content to the articles rather than removed the stuff from there. As long as all you do is purging, he, as an editor who creates content, would treat you with disdain. It may be that you are just "correcting" his POV. It may also be that you just replace his POV or a NPOV with your POV. It is difficult to judge in general and is different from case to case. It is easy, though, to see who writes stuff and who deletes it. Just give it a thought. More at the article's talk later. --Irpen 02:04, 1 May 2006 (UTC)

Irpen, I clearly see your points and I understand your logic as if I were in your shoes. In the same time it's also my understanding that even if you wrote 1,000 NPOV articles you are still not permited to write 1 POV article on your lovely topic (but you do get respect for 1,000 articles). And it's my understanding that edits should be judged by context, and not by the name of an editor who made them.

You may say that it's all nice and it's how it should be, but the world is not perfect, and I should live by de-facto rules, accepting their defects, instead of calling for de-jure rules. Well, in the end, each lives in a house that he built. KPbIC 03:27, 1 May 2006 (UTC)

Look, I am not speaking in general about articles. I am speaking about one particular aticle. Written by Kazak. Help him write it rather than remove stuff he wrote. I wrote a message at its talk where I supported you both. But my laptop battery died shortly before I would be pressing the "save" button. So, the spark is lost. I may try to recreate it later. A pity, but could be worse. It was much more pity when I at one time wrote a detailed and referenced response to Halibutt and the wiki killed it by a "server problem". See you later, alligator. --Irpen 03:31, 1 May 2006 (UTC)

Help him... It's easy to say... You are the one who is helping him :) And he will be fine :) There are others which need more help.

Are you sure you want to support both of us? You may take a look on the essence of today's disagreement on Kiev Metro, express your opinion on the subject, not on personalities, and this probably would be the most valuable support.

Overall, the Kiev Metro article is fine, probably a little too much on "Language issues", it probably misses a paragraph on the price, rules, and conditions of a ride, and of course it misses a map with Ukrainian names. :) But I don't recall removing anything valuable that Kuban wrote. He is actually doing a good stuff with station articles. But it's not an excuse for POV :).

"Server errors" should not be a problem I think; I usually use the ordinary IE, click back, save to a file, upload later. But laptop's battery is a problem :( I value the convenience of big screens; I use desktop at home, and elsewhere. I even gave away my only old laptop due to lack of need.

Alligator? Hmm... KPbIC 05:03, 1 May 2006 (UTC)

Yes, I am sure I agree with both of you. Eh, will have to try to rewrite.

I mostly use laptops everywhere. Hitting back doesn't always help when the server problem hits. BTDT.

And while I will be helping the Cossack, please help keeping Ukrained and AlexPU in check. The latter is one of the rudest Wikipedians ever. The former is appreciated to restricting his trolling activity to talk pages, as his edits are mostly good. But the talk page and edit summary trolling is a thing to avoid and we all know that. And the legendary AndriyK... These Don Quixotes of their invented anti-Russian mafia crusade put a shame on the Ukrainian community. And when they read this and tell me that it's me who is a shame, I would be fascinated one more time. See you later at talk:Kiev Metro but no guarantees that today. See You Later Alligator is a catchfrase and not an offense. --Irpen 05:23, 1 May 2006 (UTC)

Hi. I regard your yesterday's note at my talkpage as general understanding of my point. Thank you for that. Can we cooperate in editing despite your dislike of my lexics? AlexPU 06:34, 2 May 2006 (UTC)

I hope we can cooperate on issues. Don't go over personalities. KPbIC 07:43, 2 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Kuban Kazak reverts on Kiev Metro

Kuban Kazak still insists on his version in spite that it is based upon a completely irrelevent source. How could we solve this problem. What do you think about Request for Comment concering his behaviour?--AndriyK 09:05, 5 May 2006 (UTC)

So based on a completely relevant source...thus it is correct. Besides it is you who is reverting I am actually suggesting different versions. But do file an RfC, lets see what happens when the truth comes out. (which I know that the word means nothing to you). --Kuban Cossack 10:22, 5 May 2006 (UTC)

I am glad AndriyK brings his grivances publicly this time, unilike he did earlier. As for Kiev Metro, I still haven't got to posting my proposal killed by the computer mishap. Will do soon. --Irpen 19:16, 5 May 2006 (UTC)

Yes and originally saying that it was a relevant source, and then changing it...Странный чувак...Сам не может определиться, как у Пушкина

Навстречу ему Балда
Идёт, сам не зная куда.

--Kuban Cossack 19:24, 5 May 2006 (UTC)

I added the "fact" template. Hope Kazak would bring some references. If not it can be one of the points to request a comment... But I would not be around for awhile (exam time)... KPbIC 19:29, 5 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Imperial propaganda in progress

Hi there. I need neutral users' help to react on intolerable "Russification" of history here and, most important here. Imperial Pride Watch :), presented by our common ... friend, is refusing to edit the POV-table, making me delete it instead. What do you say?AlexPU 21:08, 13 May 2006 (UTC)

AlexPU, you edit and discuss a table at its talk and not blank it unilaterally. That's how easy it is. --Irpen 21:15, 13 May 2006 (UTC)

Let's work on template {{Armies of Ukraine}}. A book by Крип'якевич "Історія українського війська (від княжих часів до 20-х років XX ст.)" could be a perfect source. KPbIC 05:00, 14 May 2006 (UTC)

КРЫС, I object this idea. This is a provokation already successful against you. Neither Druzhina is Russian Army, nor Red Army is Ukrainian one. Please let's find other ways. I stick to my initial idea: we should rework the Russian template somehow. E.g. let's mark Druzhina as pre-history or something. What do you say?AlexPU 12:29, 14 May 2006 (UTC)

No objection. I think I've seen the book online. --Irpen 05:07, 14 May 2006 (UTC)

I cannot find it online. Unfortunately. KPbIC 05:22, 14 May 2006 (UTC)

This is a part two of the book about the Ukrainian period. I could not easily find part I, but judging from content table it is about the princely time and there must be plenty of other sources for that. Besides, since it exists in electronic form, it must be online somewhere. One just has to look more. Or we can buy it from the site. It's not much money.

Also, 134, maybe you could add a word or two to this fellow here about manners, you know. The messages from Ukrained, myself and several other people doesn't seem to be getting through. Judging from his recent talk page entries and edit summaries, there is no reform in manners whatsoever. Not that I care when he badmouthes me personally (I even made an amusing gallery at my talk out of his entries) but his harassing others, referring to people by nationality and other similar uncivil stuff may get our friend in trouble again. Since he is now known for his bad mouth, I don't expect any more tolerance and/or time delays between another outburst and another block. So, please try since I am giving up. TIA, --Irpen 06:43, 14 May 2006 (UTC)

And here is another interesting book. Ukrainian Armies 1914-55 by Peter Abbott. There is plenty of online sources, but this one is particularly useful for being in English and written by an established historian[2]. This TOC can be used directly.

Should we list armies that represented the Ukrainian states only (UkrSSR, WUPR, UPR, Carpatho-Ukraine) or should we also list the Ukrainian units in other armies, like Sich Rifles with Austro-Hungary, SS Galicia with Nazi Germany, separate Ukrainian units in Red Army (until '30s), etc.

UPA should certainly be listed but should we list an anti-Polish resistance force of OUN that preceeded the UPA?

Also, there was a Western Ukrainian Republic's separate Ukrainian Galician Army, which joined reds in Jan 1920 following what they perceived as Petlyura's selling them out to Poles, but retained a separate identity within reds for a while.

Pro-Soviet "alternative" Kharkiv government organized the Ukrainian Workers' and Peasants' Red Army which by mid-1919 had some 100,000 men (it was later integrated with the Red Army). There was also a "Red Cossacks of Ukraine" formations, etc. Perhaps, this is too many for a template and this would all be interesting for the History of the Ukrainian Military article to be.

Also, his other book would be interesting for the partisan article which I still haven't got time to clean up following AlexPU's POV "revision". --Irpen 20:30, 14 May 2006 (UTC)

Wow, thanks for the links. It looks like a lot of reading in front of me. :)

I only created the army template as a starting point, with a hope that it would be improved. Probably, the biggest question is about Red Army. Should it be in the template, and then the template in the Red Army article, indicating that the Red Army was the army of the Soviet Union, not only the army of Russia. Or, should we take the Red Army out of the template, claiming that it was an army that occuped Ukraine since 1920s. You probably understand that so far there is almost nothing written on Ukrainian military in the WP, and actually, I'm some kind of hoping that AlexPU may add to it.

Speaking of Alex, calling Kuban's words as ... he was wrong again. In the same time, the claim by Kuban on behalf of "whole Ukrainian community" was wrong and provocative, and Alex responded... well, you more-less characterized it. Actually, it looked like you and him have settled down the previous conflict. You worked together on Tomenko's article (actually, Tomenko gained PhD and worked 6 years in his professional field, so I would say, he can be characterized as a scientist, if we call history as a science). And now that Kuban kazak... And Alex probably have not seen yet the latest Kuban's map on Kharkiv metro... I'll write to Alex. Actually, don't you agree that there should be no room for "imperial propaganda" in this wikipedia. Hope if you see such propaganda, you would fix it, right? :) KPbIC 02:33, 15 May 2006 (UTC)

I think Red Army should be in a template because it was the Army of the USSR of which Ukraine was a consituent republic. You can say it "occupied" Ukraine in '20s. Same applies with Petlyura's army who helped Pilsudski occupy Ukraine. It doesn't discqualify it from being listed. Besides (see above) Red Army had even Ukrainian formations. Also, UHA was also a Ukrainian formation (of WUR) that allied with the Bolsheviks (see above). That doesn't disqualify it. Same applies to Sich Rifles initally a formation of Austro-Hungary, and SS Galicia, a formation which fought for the Nazi Germany. These were all Ukrainian armies. This all deserves a description in the History of the Ukrainian military but it is harder to decide for the template. It is much easier with Russia which most of the time had its own state.

As for me "cooperating" with AlexPU, I don't mind that if he behaves but I have little hope.

As for Tomenko, that he has a Ph D doesn't qualify him for the "scientists" cat. If he established a notability as a scientist, that would be a different story. From what I see the cat:Scientist applies to him no more that cat:Beekeping to Yushchenko.

I will take care re dealing with Kuban on the Metro issues to much more effect that AlexPU with his buddy Ukrained and yourself will ever hope to achieve, because unlike the three of you, I see the positive side of this editor as well and not once I managed to talk him into civilty or to withdraw inflammatory proposals. That you treat AlexPU as a harmless fellow just because he pursues a right from your viewpoint POV is a big shame. I will comment on what's below separately and I am afraid you will be pleased much less to read what I am going to say on that. --Irpen 02:50, 15 May 2006 (UTC)

It's human nature to point out the positive sides. People are talking about achievers, and if there is a doubt whether someone is qualified to be called a scientist or not, I would rather let it be called. While Tomenko is not Einstein, he wrote a bunch of scientific publications working as a scientist for 6 years, being a "decan" of a department of Kyiv-Mohila academy. So, I don't see a particular reason being too strict on him.

Kuban kazak was recently blocked for incivility once again, thus I see no progress. I do recognize his recent work on station articles for Kiev metro. Still, he sees the metro as a great achievement of the Soviet system, especially with that "stalinist" architecture underground. He seldomly recognize that the metro is first of all a transportation system. In New York, London there are so many lines that it's hard to count, yet Kuban is talking about standard Soviet triangle line design (i.e 3 lines) as some kind of achievement. He considers metro as a Soviet museum, but museum are for museums. Soviets put unreasonable amount of energy and resources into metro, and Kuban is trying now to spend his time in about the same way. And, again, each his metro article is saturated with pro-Soviet POV. It's either "right POV" for you, which I actually don't think, or you just let it go, as a better alternative to nothing, and this is what I'm tempting to weigh. This is about what I think on Kuban’s metro contribution.

With Alex, if your goal is taking him away from the wikipedia, then I think it's a wrong goal. KPbIC 03:49, 15 May 2006 (UTC)

I have no goal with Alex as you put it. I deal with his edits and entries purely based on their own merit regardless of his previous trollings. If he reforms himself and stays reformed, nothing could be better. If he continues trolling, it won't be me who would "take him away". He would do it himself exactly like two last times. Or he may end up permabanned for his filthy mouth. And don't even compare him to Kuban's occasional incivilty. Just check all of AlexPU's talk and user_talk entries and lack of effect from multiple warnings. I am conserned because this puts us all, Ukrainians, in the bad light. I had enough embarassment in the past from similar misrepresentations and spent a considerable amount of effort to try to convince some well-informed editors that happen to make the connection between the David Duke's being able to obtain a Ph D(!) from an antisemitic Ukrainian institution and some ultra-nationalist Ukrainian wiki-editors statements here. Some conclude that Ukraine is generally a nationalist nation. It took me pains to explain things in such cases to make other editors recognize that neither MAUP nor some of our compatriots here are representative of the nation. I am glad I was succesfull that time as I got the message from the user that my information was thought-provoking and helped him see things in new light.

However, when the editor not only displays all the trademark features of the Ukrainian nationalism (Russophobia being the main one) but also at the level of AlexPU's language, this makes things look even worse for us all. Pity you don't recognise this and only see the fact even with such an exptemist views and a filthy moouth his POV "seems right" just pursued in the wrong way.

I haven't finished with a couple of things yet to respond to your message below but a response will follow. --Irpen 06:20, 15 May 2006 (UTC)

KPbIC, thanks for many good words about me here. Not sure if I deserve all of them, especially regarding episodes of my short-temperedness. Of course, I don't like Irpen's impudent threatening&mentoring my ass here.

Sorry, KPbIC, but I need to discuss the Armies of Russia table with YOU, and I don't like the way Irpen is talking you into :( about that discussion. Let me remind: it's about him wanting to keep that propaganda table. All the rest (including military history of Ukraine and my expected input there) is a SIDE ISSUE HERE. You see, I'm waiting for your clear actions on that table from the moment you claimed a desire to step in. I.e., I don't delete that bloody table since :(. So please hurry up with your clear suggestions on how to change the table. E-mail, maybe?

I surely agree to co-operate with you on all issues mentioned, and more, I have few other small requests for your help. But, again, the table is the most pending issue.AlexPU 22:11, 17 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Gomel

Please when reverting moves use WP:Requested Moves in the WP:FAITH pattern. --Kuban Cossack 12:20, 14 May 2006 (UTC)

I have explained my original move on talk page. Any subsequent moves should be done with WP:Requested Moves. Which is something that you clearely forgot to do. Finally it would be Homel in Belarusian not Homyel, which plain wrong. Also please don't tattle, it does look rediculously silly. --Kuban Cossack 23:15, 14 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Maladzechna

Also you are just being plain silly here in your vandetta against me. Reverting a literary Belarusian translit to a latin alphabet that has no official use anywhere really shows how rediculous you really are. If I was a Russian POV-pusher wouldn't I have moved it to Molodechno and blocked the the redirect page? No, even though Googling that would be most sensible, however unlike you I am aware of WP:Naming Conventions. Reagardless PLEASE STOP STALKING ON MY EDITS! --Kuban Cossack 23:19, 14 May 2006 (UTC)

If you have anything to say in support in your provocative page moves, do so at article's talk page. KPbIC 23:26, 14 May 2006 (UTC)

That is not a provocative page move, that is the move that will get a massive support on any WP:Requested moves. --Kuban Cossack 23:30, 14 May 2006 (UTC)

134, Kazak's moves where in accordance with WP:Naming conventions. Lacinka is not a basis for any names in any encyclopedia. I can't see why you reverted his moves rather than to provoke him. I am glad he learned how to hold his temper and didn't reply to you with insults. And I hope this wasn't your intention to provoke him and get him banned to "compensate" for the likely block of a filthy-mouthed user:AlexPU who you are viewing as a useful pusher of the right POV, perhaps in the wrong way. --Irpen 23:33, 14 May 2006 (UTC)

Well I have requested a move now go to the talk pave of Maladzechna and vote. --Kuban Cossack 23:41, 14 May 2006 (UTC)

Irpen: On Talk:Kiev Expedition you wrote that "The article has just been moved to <Kiev Expedition and I moved it back with no prejudice to the editor who moved it. I just think the move has to be proposed at talk first so that others who watch this article could have a say on the issue." It would be nice if you apply about the same principle to all articles. KPbIC 23:49, 14 May 2006 (UTC)

Well did you plan on expanding on the city? Are going to de-stub that article? Does the fate of the article itself matter to you. Answer me honestly if it was not me who moved the article would you have cared at all? Противный ты, правда как Крыса.--Kuban Cossack 23:53, 14 May 2006 (UTC)

I would like those questions answered btw. --Kuban Cossack 00:38, 15 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Kuban cossack

Што ж можна зрабіць з гэтым Кубанскім казаком і яго minions, каб спыніць гэтую бессэнсоўную русіфікацыю? Zlobny 06:38, 16 May 2006 (UTC)

Minions...and Russification. I like that. Really, what is this then. As we like to say дружим против?--Kuban Cossack 13:20, 16 May 2006 (UTC)

Naturally! А як жа інакш? :))) Virtual war is funny and fascinating! ) Чаму б не паваяваць? Я, можа быць, і ня вельмі падобны на заўзятага апалагета лацінкі, але ж усё-ткі гэта - каштоўнасьць, вартая sttrugling --Zlobny 15:33, 16 May 2006 (UTC)

a) this is an international encyclopedia and if that is your sole purpose here I might as well let the admin know. b) As for the rest lets discuss on talk pages, this is a problem that needs to be resolved. Lacinka is going regardless of the case. When it comes to the final votes it stands no chance and the wiki admin will agree that a translit system should be used instead of an archaic script that is not used anywhere. c) As to answer the question А як жа інакш? Let's just say that conflict is not my matter, I wonder what will happen though that given when Batka and Putin finally agree on reuniting our countries, and we shall become Zemlyaki. :) (provided that Batka becomes the new chief). --Kuban Cossack 15:39, 16 May 2006 (UTC)

It's not my sole purpose! Commonly, I'm staying for lacinka, and don't find it is an archaic script. Anyway I'm against reuniting Russia an Belarus, and majority of Belarusians as well. I suppose, that if it happens, Belarus would become for Russia second Chechnya, no matter who would be the chief. But it all doesn't concern our wikipedian activity, I hope. --Zlobny 15:58, 16 May 2006 (UTC)

Speaking of the voting on renaming Maładečna to Molodechno, I've just put an annoncement on Polish portal. Let's see how it'll go. Romanians and Germans may be interested in this voting too. All what is needed is informing them.

Speaking of the proposal to change the naming convention, they need to come up with clear proposals, and I expect Kuban Cossack and probably Irpen will do it. We have to express our disagreement down the road, and at the end the community will decide.

So why is it automatically disagreement? Is it sort of an enemy of my enemy is my freind scenario? --Kuban Cossack 19:19, 16 May 2006 (UTC)

Not automatic, but it's my expectations based on your previos Russification activity. Go ahead and surprise me, I don't mind.

Speaking of Kuban kazak, AndriyK has proposed to open RfC against him, but I personally at this point would rather wait for more. Restricting Kuban Cossack to 1RR would probably be sufficient. KPbIC 19:08, 16 May 2006 (UTC)

Why file an rfc, and let AndriyK draft it. Sure I wonder how it will get of the road the moment I put a link to this. --Kuban Cossack 19:19, 16 May 2006 (UTC)

I'll put that link by myself; you would need to explain your actions. Better think, for example, what you would write about Kharkiv Metro map, and why it violated the naming convention. KPbIC 19:38, 16 May 2006 (UTC)

Look what is this attitude you have. Maybe consider instead of bullying me for doing something wrong for a map, accept the policy of DDima, who first thanks and then corrects the mistakes. I PD all of my work. You do not like how the order of languages appears on the Metro - CORRECT yourself. Вообще поясни мне, что это за неполноценность детская у тебя К ВСЕМУ ЧТО Я ДЕЛАЮ? Ну мать твою не нравиться поправь. Надоел уже право слово. Ну нельзя так подло себя вести. Прекрати поливать грязью все мои работы, лучше сам чего нибудь начни, а то тошно смотреть на тебя. --Kuban Cossack 19:54, 16 May 2006 (UTC)

Lie and lie. I've corrected wording on Kiev metro. How did you respond? Need links to recall? I let it go far, you know it, but I keep it on my "to do" list, so don't worry, it would be improved. And insults, again. You are adding to my collection. KPbIC 21:12, 16 May 2006 (UTC)

Corrected wording? No you disregarded architectural facts, I went into a very long conversation with you, and in the end who turned out to be right? Yeah only your to do list for some reason so far has always involved you stalking on all of my edits. I wonder if it actually involves innovation and new articles? Since you should such interest to Maladzechna, maybe you should de-stub the article itself. Just a suggestion :) --Kuban Cossack 21:37, 16 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] POV in History of Christianity in Ukraine

Gigantic POV additions in article History of Christianity in Ukraine by User:Kuban kazak. Please help to clean up. --Yakudza 14:43, 18 May 2006 (UTC)

Will be out for some time, but hope to be back. The christianity article would be one of the first to look into upon return. KPbIC 04:18, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Template:Exchange Rate

May I ask why you change Template:Exchange Rate? I had h2 before, but decided to make it a "mock-h2" because some people will click on the "edit button" on the right and inadvertently change the template. --Chochopk 09:34, 22 July 2006 (UTC)

Hi! Font size of H2 is not always 18px (or 19px). In Windows XP it depends on screen resolution (/ControlPanel/Display/Settings/Advanced/General/DPISettings). If you increase the resolution from 96dpi (normal size) to 120dpi (large size) you can see that H2 would correspond to about 24px. The font size should rather be given in some relative unites. Check out a new version of the template, which hopefully implements that.

Actually, I cannot see how by clicking the "edit button" on the right people can change the template by itself. The only problem with h2 is that if the click the section edit button they are given the wrong section to edit. This is the only negative effect of h2 that I can see. KPbIC 23:00, 22 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Your post on Ezhiki's user talk

Hi,

Honestly, I think that your "barnstar" on Ezhiki's talk page is a bit borderline, not to say more.

It is completely harmful and unnecessary to stalk your opponents in such a way, especially given the fact that Ezhiki created this historical template in completely good faith and to illustrate an article and a concept, a concept which is part of world history now.

Incidentally, regarding your recent contribs, I might say that some of them seem to aggravate (already existing, true) edit wars, and that reverting so much is quite disruptive, especially in order to blank an otherwise useful template. May I suggest you to write content rather than engage in revert wars? If I look at your past contributions, you seem like a reasonable and good editor, so I understand even less this recent contributions aimed at warrying and spoling of Wikipedia work atmosphere.

Update: Further looking at your contribs, I notice that you stalk several other users as well, for instance User:Kuban kazak. May I suggest to carry that dispute, if there is one, to admins rather than reverting his edits and following him everywhere?

Thanks, Grafikm ^(AutoGRAF) 23:42, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

Hi Grafikm.

First, the barnstar has been given by many users to many users. Kuban kazak has been recently awarded with one by Alex Bakharev. Speaking on barnstars for Ezhiki, I assume an editor, who created "Hero City" template would not mind be awarded with such barnstars.

Second, while the template "Hero City" is nice, I think it has little value. Kiev is a city with 1500 year history, and there were many historical events that took part over that period. The decision of awarding Hero barnstar to the city is a minor point in history.

Third, looking on your contributions, especially on Battle of Dnipro, and other "liberation" topics, I would say that you are quite an edit warrior, who tends to overemphasize the significance of Soviet victory in WWII for well-being of Ukrainian nation. Living in France, you may contribute on bringing Russia closer to the West, instead of pushing it into dead-end self-close nationalistic enclave. Better stay away from such Russian imperialists as Kuban kazak.

Best, KPbIC

Hi again,

I must say that I will ignore your first point, as I feel you deliberately make it have a dual meaning, so I daresay that won't just play this game. However, I must give you an advice: don't play it, either, for it is very dangerous :)

As for the second point, I would not call that period a "minor" one, as it is quite important (see below).

The third point, however, is the most interesting. While some articles I write (may I remind you that I wrote that Battle of Dnipro from scratch, unlike some other people I was warrying with?) sparked some controversies, it is a very long shot to define me as an edit-warrior, and a very daring one, to top it off. Some people I just won't name for ethics' sake have more than half of their mainspace (and probably more like 2/3) composed only of reverts. This is an unconstructive attitude. Writing articles, even if they spark some controversies, is always a deal better than to just criticize without any serious attempt of reaching the consensus and actually writing something. I'm afraid to say that you're sliding down this very dangerous slope, and you really should not. Furthermore, your fundamental mistake lays in your hypothesis that "bringing Russia closer to the West" means "forgetting one's own history". The Soviet Union won the bloodiest war in the whole human history. Whether it was good or bad for one or another nation is an open question. What is nevertheless clear is the following thing: should the USSR lose that mortal struggle, you (and me) would probably not be here. Whatever excesses have been committed do not reduce or recuse that fact. As someone once said "liberty does not mean cheap sausages".

On the second point, I can only repeat that the decision of awarding Hero barnstar to the city in 1961 is a minor point in 1500 year Kiev history.

On the third point, no one is suggesting to forget historical facts. But facts should not be substituted by interpretations. Probably, there is no point going again into a discussion on liberation ("liberation from nazi" was the version I supported), but I should point out that being an author of an article does not give a permission to sneak into the article a favorable interpretation. From what I remember you were one of the most active edit warriors in the Battle of Dnipro. --KPbIC 02:11, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

Best, Grafikm ^(AutoGRAF) 01:12, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

Don't worry about our freind, I think it is the best that he can do, no innovation, no originality, no perception, just riding on someone else's back to slow him down (although in ALL cases so far this has got him nowhere, I am still galloping with my shashka in the air). What can I say? It is amusing rather than being a pain the arse. Есть такая поговорка: Сколько бы ты мусора не высыпал ветер все равно раздует...Well I would never exptect a rat to have a good reputation and now the shockwaves of his attacks are reaching the wider community and getting the desired and honest response...--Kuban Cossack 23:54, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

Kazak, really, cool down, won't you. Grafik's message was really all there is to it. Stay cool yourself and leave the job of giving the recommendations and advice for those with somewhat cooler head.

Krys, I don't understand what is happening with you lately. Please have some WP:TEA and cool it. --Irpen 00:11, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

Irpen, you are also not the same as I remember you from half year ago. I've been surprised to notice your recent block, and RfC. Overall, you now seems to be more involved in all kinds of conflicts than in contributing activity. KPbIC 00:46, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

For that controversial block, I suggest you read more at the admin board archives as well as at mine and Dmcdevit's talk pages. While I may often be wrong, this particular case was entirely based on trolling of some around here which ended up with the provocation to which Dmcdevit reacted without sorting this out for himself. In fact, I don't see a big deal in the block itself and I said so before. Besides, that story helped sort things out and expose better on who is who.

I am glad that you are bringing up that RfC. Started by the same users, I was happy to see where it went but it unfortunately it isn't there yet, as I have yet not written my response, but it will be coming. I must honestly say, that I am really glad that that page now exists.

That was as far as I am conserned. But as far as you are conserned, I suggest you cool it. This all looks to me like you are attempting to provoke Kazak into something that would get him blocked. I could see that this may happen but you will be earning a quite a reputation for yourself while you reach that stage. Please get into merit of each case, rather than continue this disruption. --Irpen 01:02, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

Irpen, I think you do participate in edit wars. But it’s possible that you were blocked in part due to your critique of too harsh blocking policy of some admins. I think you were deleting POV templates more than allowed. But it’s also possible that your RfC was opened in part because you pointed too many times on somebody else RfC to vanish arguments of the other side. And, as I wrote, the overall impression is that you participate too much into all kind of conflicts. I mean, there is nothing wrong in it, somebody has to do it, but you better ask for admin status, if this is the type of activity you like. I thought, when you were proposing to others to work on Kiev tram or similar, you would also contribute, but it didn’t happen. This is what I noticed.

Speaking on Kuban kazak, it was him, not me who was stalking AlexPU yesterday on Soviet partisans. Today, once he is outside of 24h set by 3RR he is back in business on that article. It is not me who adds trollish summaries, or uncivil comments as he did today on my talk page. If he gets blocked, it would be for a reason.

Anyway, thanks for the tea. --KPbIC 02:58, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

Make sure it is served froma Samovar...now Krys, listen you can provoke me all you like but history of all our disputes to date show the opposite. You know that what you are doing is wrong, so stop it. Я сам непонимаю че ты в меня вцепился, ну если тебе дает половое удовлетворение каждый раз когда тебе дают понять чтоб отстал то ты зря ко мне обращаешся...лучше тут ищи людей... Потому что сейчас это дошло до маразма какого-то. Лучше поличи себя или поищи вторую половину чем за мной гоняться, все равно на ножках за конем не поспеешь.--Kuban Cossack 16:48, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Ukraine

I have not violated a 3RR rule - since when do you not talk to OTHERS who are reverting my edits? I won't stand for it. They should allow a simple edit of putting in a wiki link. Nothing more. No harm done. Enough. Also, FYI - I work with the UN, so my input here is somewhat valid - I'm not simply trying to have it 'my way'. Rarelibra 05:54, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Hero Cities

Hi, KPbIC! First of all, please accept my apologies that you found the template which I created offensive; although your reaction to it is somewhat puzzling to me. From what I remember of my past brief interactions with you, you seemed like a reasonable fellow; definitely not the type who'd start handing out buckets of sarcastic awards before even asking what's going on. Anyway, judging from the discussion on my talk page and above on this one, I think I owe an explanation.

Yesterday, at the Russian notice board, Ghirlandajo asked for community's opinion regarding whether or not a Hero Cities template would be a good idea. It seemed like a relatively useful template to have to me, and as I was the only one who responded, I went ahead and created one. The problem I encountered was that the Hero Cities, as you well know, are located in three different modern countries, and the only suitable title of sufficient commonality I could think about was "Hero Cities of the Soviet Union" (thanks for changing it to "former", by the way, it was an oversight on my part), with further subcategorization into Belarus, Russia, and Ukraine. If the "Soviet Union" part irked you, I welcome any suggestions as to what title would be more acceptable.

When I started adding the template to the actual articles, the idea lost some of its appeal. Hero Cities are large cities with rich histories, and although I don't agree that their Hero City status is just a "minor point" as you put it above, having yet another template at the bottom kind of overloads the articles' footers, if only from the aesthetic point of view. Perhaps having just a category would have been sufficient, I don't know. In any case, if you still feel the template is a mistake, please put it on TfD, which, if I may remind you, was an option available to you all along.

Meanwhile, I hope you'll understand if I respectfully decline the award you've given me. To answer your other question, I do not have any further plans for creating similar templates—this one was a one-time deal that turned up unexpectedly. Rest assured, if I ever find myself looking into creating a template along similar lines, I will make sure to request your input before actually creating and implementing it.

Hopefully this closes this incident. Of course, should you have any questions or comments, you are welcome on my talk page. Best of luck to you in your edits.—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); 13:51, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Naming Conventions

I told everybody, every mark is there for a reason. If you want to question some of the marks, why not do that in the separate paragraph? And no, neither Latsinka nor IOT2000 are fair to the Belarusian pronounciation (from the Anglo-phone reader POV). Every system with diacritics is hard-to-read is one aspect, and the fairness goes when systems with artificial conventions break English lang. traditions (JA for YA, CH everywhere etc.) ---Yury Tarasievich 21:20, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

Based on my experience "ia" is more "fair" to the native pronunciation than "ya", and also "ia" is a little more easy to read than "ya" for English-only people. But I agree with you on diacritic letters. --KPbIC 02:02, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

IA is okay, so is the YA. And JA is not. ---Yury Tarasievich 08:46, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Historical Ukrainian Regions

Please stop vandalizing Template:Ukrainian historical regions page ([3], [4]) by attempting to put ethnically Russian lands into Ukraine. Russia, and Kuban in particular do not want to be a part of Ukraine. Neither they desire to use Ukrainian language over their mothers' Russian language. All world, and including the official Ukraine recognize Kuban, Kursk and Bryansk as part of Russia, historically, linguitstically and ethnically. The Wikipedia is not a tool to express your Ukrainian chauvinism. --Kuban Cossack 22:01, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

The template lists ethnocultural Ukrainian regions, and Kuban' is one of them. File TfD if you think the template is not appropriate. --KPbIC 22:20, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

I will file an RfC on user conduct if you do not stop this Russophobic crusade, and I could not care less on what you write on Uk-wiki, so do not bother to link me there. Kuban is PROVEN ethnographically to be Russian. If you go there you will not find a -chuk or a -enko, or even the -enkov twists. All of us, myself included are -ovs, -evs and -ins. The most common surname in Kuban are still Ivanov, Kuznetsov and Smirnov. --Kuban Cossack 22:24, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

While not questioning that Kuban' is a part of Russia, and up to some degree is ethnographically close to the rest of Russia, historically this region has been populated by Ukrainians (based on 1897 Russian Empire census), and this is a historical fact which stays, whether you like it or not.

Be civil, and avoid personal remarks about my personality. --KPbIC 22:54, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

Like I said before 1897 census implied language not ethnicity, does Kiev being Russophone make it a Russian city? Kuban Cossacks are not Ukrainians, and never were. Check the 2002 census and under which category do the cossacks appear?--Kuban Cossack 23:16, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

Sort yourself out in that case, how about ending your stalking and POV-pushing crusade. А характер у тебя точно самый скверный, интересно откуда он у тебя, в детстве у тебя в песке лопату отобрал кто-то, и теперь студент неможешь простить, и во всем виноваты мы кляти москали так? Ну если садомазо не вылечет головой об столб попробуй. Уж википедии как и Украине от этого точно ущерба не будет.--Kuban Cossack 23:16, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

Kazak, cool it. RfC is your right, but it will not bring much. A threat of it is meaningless. There are by far worse Russophobes around than Krys, so do not use the strong word too liberally and do not stalk him even as a payback for his stalking you. It is his methods rather than views is what's really deplorable but I doubt there is a solution to this in Wikilawyering.

You both crusading against each other is a totally ridiculous spree that consumes the time better spent elsewhere. --Irpen 23:12, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Brest

It doesn't make any sense, however. If Belarus has two official languages, why should we delete one of them? We should present reality. —Khoikhoi 22:45, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

But then, in Ukraine there is only one official language, and yet, some want to include Russian names into city articles. Why? Because they claim that the criteria is not of a language being official or not, but rather the claimed fact is that Russian names have being used in English. If so, then the same criteria should apply elsewhere. The Russian name of a Belarusian city should not be included just because Russian is the official language in Belarus (this is what Kuban kazak claims to be the reason for inclusion), but based on some facts that indicate that the Russian name is an established city name in English. But then, Polish guys would claim that Polish name has also been established in English, and we are going into the next circle.

Any ideas on fixing such circling? --KPbIC 23:20, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

Yes, I think all three names should be listed. Belarusian first, and PL and RU after that in alphabetical order of their languages. There is nothing wrong with that and that's not too much clutter. It's not like adding marginally relevant PL name to Kiev or RU name to Warsaw. --Irpen 23:28, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

And RU is official in Belarus, even the president's website lacks a BY version, is that saying anything?--Kuban Cossack 23:30, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

Official language have to be given regardless of the case, and if there are two and one is to be selected, then at present it is the Russian language that is dominant in Belarusian politics and culture. --Kuban Cossack 23:26, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

(to KPbIC) The criteria is not of a language being official or not. There are many factors. What I think is that it's a matter of what serves the reader or not. If a city has a significant Russian history, historic (and/or present) Russian population, then by all means, I don't see anything wrong with mentioning the Russian name. It's not going to make the city "less Ukranian" or change the status of the actual city at all, it's just helpful to the reader. Anyways, I think that all relevant names should be mentioned at the top. So if the Polish name is relevant, then it should be included. What should not be included is the Chinese or Tibetan name for the cities. ;) —Khoikhoi 23:29, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

I agree that the current criteria is not of a language being official or not, as such criteria is mentioned nowhere in WP:NC. And I think it was a mistake by Kuban kazak to act according to such criteria, as he did on Brest article. --KPbIC 23:38, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

Well that would certainly mean ommiting Belarusian as well now? --Kuban Cossack 23:40, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Ivan Plyushch

This was the most ironic accusation I've seen for a while, to here it from you. Also, your summary is inappropriate. That edit does not qualify as vandalism and you know it. --Irpen 00:10, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

Sorry, if I interpreted the edit incorrectly. You seem to know a lot about stalking, as it follows from our discussion a few days ago. Then, could you explain to me the true nature of that Kuban's edit, as you see it. --KPbIC 00:18, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

Because Irpen reffered me [5] Unlike you I never use the user contributions panel. Лучше спроси почему тебе кто-то "обязан" докладывать что и как? --Kuban Cossack 00:23, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

I see that Irpen provided you a link, but it does not explain the reason you began trolling and stalking my edits on that particular article. --KPbIC 00:32, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

Туше пожар огнем, один пример тебя взбесил ... а я тебя какой месяц уже терплю? Well if it will mean that you will stop stalking me, maybe I should, how Americans say: "give a taste of your own medicine". Although I shall consider the impact it will have on my dignity (I know it is word you do not know) by adopting your strategy. However the effect of one case speaks for itself... --Kuban Cossack 01:03, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Template:Hero Cities

Hi, since a legitimate template is being removed by prejudiced Russian editors, I see no reason why they should put a worthless Hero Cities template- serving no informational or navigational purposes WHATSOEVER (being a simple Soviet historical relict)- into the Kiev article, as a category fully suffices. Regards. Truthseeker 85.5 14:34, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

I second that. --KPbIC 04:08, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

There is a difference in whether disputed is the content of the template (like in case of the UA regions) or its very existence (since there seems to be no disagreement which cities were accorded the hero status and which were not). If there was an edit war over the fundamental content of the hero-cities template, I would have removed it myself from the articles, at least until the war is settled. Your objections to the template are over the existence and should be taken to the template's talk, or best yet, to a TfD. UA-region's template existence, OTOH, is not disputed by anyone, perhaps name is (etnocultural suggestion). As such, the situations are different we have a dispute over template content vs the dispute of the template existence. --Irpen 04:37, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

Nobody questioned that Podolia is a historical Ukrainian region. Until you initiated the removal of the template from Podolia article. I saw your actions, and I don't buy your explanation. --KPbIC 04:46, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

I intended to put it back once the war over the template was over and I said so before. I explained that I saw no need to have the good articles compromised by the template that is edit warred over so intensely. You never know what this template is going to become any day while people disagree over its vmost basic principles and even the name. I explained this to you earlier and I don't care whether you buy this or not. This is the truth and your habitual ABF is neither new nor even upsetting anymore. --Irpen 04:49, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

I assume your good faith, and yet I see your response to the clearly vandalizing actions by Kuban as inappropriate. --KPbIC 04:55, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Rules proposal (with rationale)

I didn't hear from you yet? ---Yury Tarasievich 13:18, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Ukrainization

You have been blocked for 6 hours for edit-warring at Ukrainization, Your edits at 6.58 on 28/9 and 4.55, 4.29, and 5.18 29/9 all involved either reverting the noncompliant tag or the paragraph about Ukrainian language in schools. Please refrain from excessive reverting once this block expires.Blnguyen | rant-line 07:58, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

As a matter of fact, in the mentioned 4 edits, the tag has been restored 3 times, and the paragraph about Ukrainian language in schools has been edited 3 times. By itself, each of the actions does not constitute 3RR violation. If aggregated, it should be also taking into account that down the road the edits has been extensively discussed on the talk page by my opponent and me, we agreed on some points, and in the end the article has been gradually improving. --KPbIC 17:35, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

If I am correct, the WP:3RR says that the four reverts do not have to be on the same section of the article, but any four reverts to the same article.Blnguyen | rant-line 00:35, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

Well, it looks like you are correct. As I see it now, in April, the policy has been clarified that any 4 reverts count. The last time I studied the policy it was not there yet. Still, the policy does not obligate you to impose a block. I think, both, my opponent and I, we were making reasonable attempts to avoid edit war, as the issues were discussed, and we were converging to a compromise version. A note on his and my talk page that we are going too far would probably be sufficient.

How did you find out about that page? If you were asked to take a look at the "edit war" on Ukrainization, you should still be wise in blocking, rather than being manipulated. --KPbIC 01:35, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] DYK

On 16 September 2006, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Vasyl Karazin, which you created. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the "Did you know?" talk page.

[edit] Was it worth it?

Well Molodechno has now been moved to its rightful title, and now its all settled, but to tell me one thing, Was it worth keeping a dispute open for four months? So that now there is a "Y" added to the title? I mean knowing that you are hardly a linguist surely that "y" does not matter that much to you? Well even if it does, fair enough, but why did you need to keep the dispute open for such a long time? There are things about your behaivour that I think I'll never understand and this is certainly one of them. --Kuban Cossack 15:48, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] DYK

On 27 September 2006, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Gold of Polubotok, which you created. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the "Did you know?" talk page.

[edit] Fair use rationale for Image:FP120891.gif

Thanks for uploading Image:FP120891.gif. The image description page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in Wikipedia articles constitutes fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale.

If you have uploaded other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on those pages too. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that any fair use images lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

This is an automated notice by OrphanBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. 21:07, 2 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Image:Tkachenko.jpg

Thanks for uploading Image:Tkachenko.jpg. I notice the 'image' page specifies that the image is being used under fair use, but its use in Wikipedia articles fails our first fair use criterion in that it illustrates a subject for which a freely licensed image could reasonably be found or created. If you believe this image is not replaceable, please:

1. Go to the image description page and edit it to add {{Replaceable fair use disputed}}, without deleting the original Replaceable fair use template.
2. On the image discussion page, write the reason why this image is not replaceable at all.

Alternatively, you can also choose to replace the fair use image by finding a freely licensed image of its subject or by taking a picture of it yourself.

If you have uploaded other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified how these images fully satisfy our fair use criteria. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on this link. Note that any fair use images which are replaceable by free-licensed alternatives will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. --Chowbok ☠ 21:23, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Your input is requested

Your input would be appreciated at this Request for Comments. Kelly Martin (talk) 15:43, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Lack of logic and respect to others...

Ok, once again here you are stalking on my edits, now then before one makes a jump into the hellpit of edit wars, I would like to point out that what appears to be going on the surface is not exactly what is going on underneath. First, and foremost the stations of the Kharkiv Metro (note I am not using the term Kharkov Metro). Now me and Dima discussed this topic of nomenclature for the Metro stations in Kharkiv, we decided that as, unlike other systems in Ukraine, this one has retained all of its Russian functions, including voice announcements, first-hand evidence for which has been provided. So we logically used the local Russian names, whilst keeping the standard Ukrainian offcial status by having Kharkiv Metro, not Kharkov Metro in the brackets. So Dima begins writing the Kharkiv Metro stations articles, I do Kiev ones...both become bored (after you write 10 of them it really does hit you...which why successive ones are done at a much slower pace...). Anyway 8 stations he completed... then on 21st of November, with no consensus User:Olexandr Kravchuk moves four out of them to a twisted non standard version. Now do I have a moral right reverting that? I mean if take all the arguments that you made just to keep Maladzyechna at its Lacinka's version... then certainly this should not be treated differentely. So if reversion of trolling is Russification for you... it really explains why you are still studying for exams. Retakes, must have failed the originals by wasting time on putting a -y- in Maladzyechna and such... Что-ж сколько волка не корми, а он все равно в лес смотрит. Только ты не волк а Крыса! :)

PS: If you do care about the Metro stations in Kharkov then go on Talk:Kharkiv Metro and make all the relevant suggestions... I might actually support your proposal given you do not edit war right now, but go to the talk page and present your thoughts, and let them be civilly discussed.

PPS: As for European square then we do write Chernigov Governorate, Yekaterinoslav Governorate as opposed to them being called Chernihiv and Katerynoslav, so why do you insist on writing Aleksanrovs'ka? When in Ukrainian it would be Oleksadrovs'ka. Kuban Cossack 22:53, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

User:Olexandr Kravchuk correctly moved four Kharkiv Metro stations to their Ukrainain names (the offical language of Ukraine), and he explained the moves as such (i.e. moves to Ukrainian name). Contrary, you moved them claiming "rv unexplained move" as the only summary. What exactly was so "unexplained"? DDima, me, and probably other users noticed the move by User:Olexandr Kravchuk, but surprisingly, only you found it "unexplained".

You wrote, Metro in Kharkiv "has retained all of its Russian functions". Wrong. For example, this station Pivdennyi Vokzal (Kharkiv Metro) is named "Пiвденний вокзал", not "Южный вокзал" (photo). Or, here is an advertisment in Ukrainian (photo).

For a moment, take a position of a outsider. What he sees is a Russian user from Russia (i.e. you) who came to an article about a metro in Ukraine, and imposes that the article should be named in Russian spelling. Despite the fact that Ukrainian citizens not so long time ago chose to live in an independent country, that they have their language, Ukrainian, and that the only official language of the country, as set by country's constitution is Ukrainian. There are many in Ukraine who speak Russian, or who are Russians by nationality, and who no doubt have rights to develop their language. But you, and people in Russia like you, оказываете медвежью услугу (=foolish help), and only working toward a view of Russians as imperialists or occupants. It's up to the people of Ukraine to choose our way in the world; one or two, or three official languages, if there is a need. If you want to be a friend, you need to recognize that. If you want to be an enemy, keep pushing from outside. --KPbIC 00:58, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

Gibbons is PD. Please leave him alone. --Irpen 21:09, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

Ok, but please acknowledge that per WP:COPYRIGHT#Contributors' rights and obligations. Otherwise, you seems to abuse GFDL. --KPbIC 21:13, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

PD does not have to be acknowledged at all. Policy (and the law) requires acknowledging only of external GFDL mateiral. But we can acknowledge PD if we want. I will take care of this. --Irpen 21:18, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

I may be wrong, I'm not a lawyer, but I think GFDL requires to acknowledge the authorship if you contribute by bringing material which is not yours. Anyway, thanks for taking care of it. --KPbIC 21:26, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Moves

What do you think about the moves discussed here? More comments would be appreciated.-- _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk} 21:34, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

Would you concur with what I wrote at Talk:Muscovy?-- _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk} 23:57, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Anti-Ukrainian mafia? *chuckle*

Please, this accusation is laughable. What could I possibly have against a country I've never even been to? The question was discussed to infinitum we do not insert Categories unless it is not disputed by mainstream science. Namecalling and smartass comments on my talk page are pretty much irrelevant, but if you do it again I'm reporting you for making personal attacks. If you disagree with the edits, discuss the edits. I will NOT be lumped in with some imaginary Ukraine-hating cabal that exists only in the minds of a few people with too much time on their hands. TheQuandry 21:30, 23 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] WP:ANI

What's going on with this edit? User:Zoe|(talk) 23:51, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

It was a response, but the main part is missing (somehow). Give me a moment to figure it out. Thanks --KPbIC 23:53, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

Fixed. --KPbIC 00:00, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] З Новим Роком

[edit] З Різдвом Христовим і з Новим Роком!