User:Mikkalai/artalk2

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Archive This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Contents

Great Patriotic War

There are some unwikified additions to the page. What should we do - move to the talk? insert into a table? --Ghirla | talk 14:33, 13 January 2006 (UTC)

I edited Deng's eastern front/proposed page as suggested in the discussion page. The main article is protected since it became an edit battleground. I am trying to set upa s tripped-down, short main article so that controversies can be contained in smaller, more specific articles. Please comment on the discussion page if you find this a useful starting point. Thanks. DMorpheus 15:22, 24 January 2006 (UTC)

List of Belarusians

Hello, Mikkalai. I added a link on the talk page, Talk:List of Belarusians, of some famous Belarusians. You might know who on that list is significant and who isn't. Also, I think the article needs serious expanding, if you know of any sources which contain significant Belarusian figures, leave them on my talk page and I will add them and research as much information as I can find on them. Thanks. Antidote 02:09, 15 January 2006 (UTC)

Cwen

Can you please look into Cwen article? I see, you worked with it before. Several editors continue writing text which I see at least far from mainstream science. I several times deleted from the text some definitely dubious statements, but they keep appearing. The article has a label: This article may contain original research or unverified claims for very long time. But no one took action on this. Is there a way to halt this private essay from growing? Dank u. -Piet

A Russian troll

After vandalizing Belarusian language and History of Belarus article (and totally dirupting editing of these two articles), the Russian troll Kuban Kazak continued his activities on the article about my native town Vorsha ([1]). I would like to ask Wikipedia admins and Wikipedia community members as what I should do in such a situation. Thank you very much. --rydel 02:37, 22 January 2006 (UTC)

Territorial claims of the Baltic States

As you most likely remember you have protected the article Territorial claims of the Baltic States from renaming. It was generally agreed in the talk page of the article that the current name is wrong but it was kept as other proposed names, including my proposal, were also seen as wrong. I would like to ask you if you plan some further actions/improval and more correct naming for that article? Else you perhaps should unprotect it from renames because a factually wrong name should not be protected. I will not push my proposal now nor will I rename the article - maybe someone else, however, will come with a better suggestion - one which would be both factually accurate and neutral. Or maybe you plan to move the information to other articles, such as "Territorial changes of Estonia", "Territorial changes of Latvia" and such where you would list all changes over history eventually, as you have previously proposed (in that case I think having separate articles for each of the states would be better solution than a single article on territorial changes of Baltic States)? Anyways, I was away to Frankfurt for nearly a month; I am back now but I still won't have much time for Wikipedia so I'll probably stick to improving the articles about the German communities in foreign states. I hope, however, that you, as an administrator who protected the article from renamings, will also decide on a good solution. Kaiser 747 10:51, 24 January 2006 (UTC)

Slang

Please contribute to the discussion. Uncle G 11:50, 24 January 2006 (UTC)

Why ?

Извини, но что ты делаешь ? Не только тебе решать что должно быть написанно в вики, ты не бог, не забывайся. Если ты имеешь что-то против Румынии и Молдовы, то это твои личные проблемы и не стоит свою неприязнь распостронять на вики. Извини что написал на русском, не выдержал. --Just a tag 18:15, 24 January 2006 (UTC)

Мда, всё с тобой ясно. As for your "random-numbers-out-of-Mikkas-head" go here http://www.statistica.md/recensamint.php?lang=ro and start reading. --Just a tag 21:26, 24 January 2006 (UTC)
Mikka, stop playing, your not discussing anything, I don't care who you are being upset with or what, you hear me ? this is your own problem, stop this ridicule of yours. --Just a tag 21:41, 24 January 2006 (UTC)
Listen buddy, talk first, discuss things, look for other peoples' opinions, wait a day or two for reactions from other users and then provide sources for your changes. If everyone or almost everyone else agrees, then you can go ahead and make the changes. Don't rush things, MIKKA. That will only get others irritated and annoyed. Discussions here are essential. Constantzeanu 23:26, 24 January 2006 (UTC)

Russian famine of 1921

Hi, I'm glad you are back. Please check recent edits on the article, some POV-pushing activity seems to be on. --Ghirla | talk 18:49, 25 January 2006 (UTC)

And while at it, you may want to look at talk:Holodomor. The article is now protected which forced some to finally read talk and participate in discussion rather than gang-up for revert wars. The talk is longish a bit and you will need time to get into it (that is if you have any). Participants include 172 and Dietwald in addition to traditionally active Russian and Ukrainian editors. --Irpen 02:01, 26 January 2006 (UTC)

Thanks

Thank you for all of your help to this new user! Madangry 02:06, 26 January 2006 (UTC)

Need help with Nache

Greetings. I found you through your babelbox for speaking Polish. I need some help in deciding if an article and it's connected articles are all a hoax or not. Nache references a Polish girl band. Supposedly the are rather well known as they have a single that went 3x platinum. I've found refernces online that might be pointing to this band, but I don't speak Polish. Can you verify if this band is a hoax or not please? Thanks, --Durin 15:30, 26 January 2006 (UTC)

Blocking of User:86.106.51.95

Hi Mikka. I've noticed that you blocked User:86.106.51.95. Was it for the edit summary "(rv, keep it easy Bubico)"? If so, I think the block is quite unjustified, considering that what the user said was hardly a personal attack, and no warning was received (i.e. he should've been told at first that if he persists with this behaviour, he will be blocked). I'm just worried that you're using blocks in such a liberal manner. Thanks, Ronline ✉ 08:12, 27 January 2006 (UTC)

Are you naive or pretending to be naive? In the first case you are too early to be admin, in the second case there is nothing to discuss with you. In any case, you more than once demonstrated skewed judgement, so please don't talk to me, and I will not be bothering you with requests as well. mikka (t) 17:41, 27 January 2006 (UTC)
Mikka, thanks for blocking this anon. Just a question. It certainly appears a Bonaparte's edit from a Polish IP. He used Polish open proxies in the past (as well as Chinese ones) for his trolling and there is nothing new. My question is why you blocked an open proxy for 24 hours only. Open proxies are to be banned indefinetely as per WP:NOP ("Any IP address which is an open proxy may be indefinitely blocked by any administrator at any time"). Or this isn't an open proxy? Then sorry for bothering you. --Irpen 08:26, 27 January 2006 (UTC)
Bonny is watching us! --Ghirla | talk 18:33, 27 January 2006 (UTC)

Mikka, how many weeks block should be applied for this? Your past block just expired and I think the escalating punishment concept applies to Duca as well. Besides, chances are he is Bonaparte anyway. --Irpen 19:37, 27 January 2006 (UTC)

What's the reason for having that guy blocked? --Candide, or Optimism 19:39, 27 January 2006 (UTC)
For repeated disruption. mikka (t) 19:50, 27 January 2006 (UTC)
Mikka, what does "Bubico" mean (ie. in the anon's edit summary)? I guess it's not an English phrase, at least it's not in my dictionary. :-(( --83.238.46.138 20:02, 27 January 2006 (UTC)
It is name. What's yours? mikka (t) 20:06, 27 January 2006 (UTC)

To those who are really curious and to some Romanians playing dumb, Bubico is the title of a popular comedy (or, rather, a humorous story) by Ion Luca Caragiale, the name of a mischievous dog. mikka (t) 20:12, 27 January 2006 (UTC)

My name is Stanisław, and I'm not Romanian. Thx for answering, I haven't read/seen this comedy ywt. --83.238.46.138 20:14, 27 January 2006 (UTC)
Actually, it's just a short story: [2] bogdan 20:37, 27 January 2006 (UTC)
Yep, that's what I meant: a comic novel. mikka (t) 20:57, 27 January 2006 (UTC)
So you had him blocked simply for that? Mikka, I asked you politely why you blocked him, and you replied to me in a quite offensive tone. I believe in transparency, and I believe that if any user asks a sysop why they blocked another user, he should get a polite and accurate response back, particularly since your block summary only said "offense". I'm not naive, I just don't make quick judgements like some others here. You think you can just tell me "don't talk to me" and I won't. Mikka, this is about the public interest. I'm not talking to you about the weather, or about how to improve some article, but about what I feel has been a misapplication of admin powers. When this stuff happens, I must talk to you. Unfortunately, there seems to be a culture here at Wikipedia recently that doesn't permit other users to question decisions made by admins. That's unfortunate, and hinders the fair application of policy at Wikipedia. So did you block him for that Bubico offense, or for something else? This is about User:86.106.51.95, not the open proxy Irpen was talking about. Thanks, Ronline ✉ 22:24, 27 January 2006 (UTC)
Why don't you look into the history of its edits yourself? Judging from your insistence, you see no problems with this account. Well, feel free to feed your anon Romanian trolls and vandals. I no longer buy your "politeness" and worries about culture in Wikipedia. Please go away. mikka (t) 22:33, 27 January 2006 (UTC)
But you see - you seem to think that in the process of trying to "combat" trolls and vandals, they shouldn't be at least treated fairly and in good faith. From looking back at that user's edits, he made this edit relating to you and "Bubico summary". I don't think any of them are grounds for a block without any prior warning. It sounds very odd - almost a conflict of interest - when someone makes a request for page protection in an article you are involved in and you block them. I'm not endorsing what he did at all, but just saying that you should have given him warning and tried to resolve the dispute before blocking him, particularly since you were involved in editing that page, and in fact that dispute was quite directly between your version of the page and the version he supported. You probably also thought that that IP was of another, longer-time user, but it's important not to assume that when applying judgement. Everything should be taken at face value, and at face value, the block seems harsh and unjustified. Thanks, Ronline ✉ 22:45, 27 January 2006 (UTC)
Yet another example of your selective judgement. Sory, this is my last answer to you, since I don't believe I can teach you, for a number of reasons. mikka (t) 22:55, 27 January 2006 (UTC)
Well, whatever. Think what you want. I honestly don't appreciate the fact that I can't talk about this case openly to you. Ronline ✉ 22:59, 27 January 2006 (UTC)

Why?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Romanian_Wikipedians%27_notice_board#Romania-related_userboxes --Candide, or Optimism 00:02, 28 January 2006 (UTC)

Delete all or none. --Candide, or Optimism 00:15, 28 January 2006 (UTC)

  • OK. So you are essentially saying that until wikipedia has aggressive-political-dissent-mongering-and-proud-of-it editors, you shall be among them. Well, tell me something new, colleague. mikka (t) 00:18, 28 January 2006 (UTC)
I'm saying that it's not fair to single out a particular box and leave the others alone. In my opinion, Jimbo was smoking pot when he said those things. If he thought the boxes were harming Wiki, he should have made an announcement that all such and such boxes would be deleted and then delete them. Instead, he made a mess when he said nothing about something. Also, wanting a reunion is not bad, tovarash. ;) --Candide, or Optimism 00:24, 28 January 2006 (UTC)
I happen to agree with you here. I deleted this template, because it was edited by the same one who created template Dismemberment of Ukraine Wikipedians, so I saw here bad faith. Well, if you liked it have it. As for reunion, how about re-Soviet-Union tovarash? Uniţi-vă! mikka (t) 00:33, 28 January 2006 (UTC)
You deleted it because it was "edited" by a certain user? He didn't create it you know, all he did was changing the color! That whole decision strikes me as bad faith, and hardly explains satisfactory why you rushed to delete this particular userbox. And isn't it common to have a vote regarding such a move before the actual deletion? Anclation 09:24, 28 January 2006 (UTC)
You are over-nervous. It was a mistake. I thought that he created it, together with the template Dismemberment of Ukraine Wikipedians. My error I did not check the history. I apologize. I should have thiought better, knowing how touchy you are. I have nothing against any reunification. mikka (t) 18:43, 28 January 2006 (UTC)
The template is working. {{User reunification romania moldova}}.
Mikka please stop you vandalism against anything that is related to Romania. Duca is an ultra-nationalist. Most of us Romanian-Wikipedians do not agree with him. He might have created the dismemberment of Ukraine template(which I think is wrong and offensive on his part) but not this one. Like Anclation correctly pointed out, he only changed the color. I am sure you knew that and you were only trying to find any excuse to erase the RO-RM template. If you did not know and you just deleated it because a certain user has created it, then that shows that you are far from understanding democracy and free-speach my friend and so it is even more shameful on your part. If you want to support the reunion of the USSR, be my guest. I certainly won't erase your template, only because I do not agree with your opinion. So please mind your own business and do not erase it. Constantzeanu 17:49, 28 January 2006 (UTC)
I thought you are a reasonable person. I specifically explained that I deleted it because Duca is nasty troll, who created template Dismemberment of Ukraine Wikipedians. And the "re-Soviet Union" was a joke, it was linking to the article Communist Party of the Soviet Union (1992). And I answered about yours, "if you like it, have it". Chill out. I apologize, this was a mistake. Next time I will think longer. mikka (t) 18:38, 28 January 2006 (UTC)
Mikka is not anti-Ro. He has created quite a few articles about Ro. --Candide, or Optimism 19:49, 28 January 2006 (UTC)

Mikka, this is user:Irpen editing your talk page through an open proxy used by probably Bonaparte to troll at your talk page just before. As you can see, I can use it too. Open proxies should be indef blocked as per policy. I think it is a safe bet to remove all their contributions on-site. --195.144.125.183 20:15, 28 January 2006 (UTC)
P.S. I confirm that this above was my edit, but the [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Contributions&target=195.144.125.183 previous ones[ were probably Bonaparte's. --Irpen 20:17, 28 January 2006 (UTC)

This is user:Irpen again editing through another proxy just used by Bonny to vandalize yours, Ghirla's and mine pages. --221.169.51.189 21:04, 28 January 2006 (UTC)
Yep, that was me. And the fellow just vandalized Ghirla's page again a second ago. --Irpen 21:06, 28 January 2006 (UTC)

Why no. 2 -Gagauz and Transnitrian conflicts

I simply don't understand the reason you are editing this article, since you don't provide the connection between the two conflicts. Meawhile you somehow duplicate an existing article War of Transnistria. May I know your reasons? --Vasile 00:33, 31 January 2006 (UTC)

I don't know the procedure of deletion request. --Vasile 00:51, 31 January 2006 (UTC)

The two conflicts had different development and they were totally disconnected by the mid 1990. I think it might be better to edit History of Moldova accordingly (e.g. "Secession of Transnistria"). --Vasile 00:56, 31 January 2006 (UTC)

Warning 3

What are you talking about? --Candide, or Optimism 00:45, 31 January 2006 (UTC)

Your fun with you know who. It is meaningless, and gives you negative score. mikka (t) 00:47, 31 January 2006 (UTC)
No, I don't know what. What? --Candide, or Optimism 00:48, 31 January 2006 (UTC)
"A crocodile is more..." etc. Most people will consider this an offense. Of course, it is my opinion, feel free to ignore it. I just warned you. But someone else may take an action. mikka (t) 00:58, 31 January 2006 (UTC)
Well, just in case you did warn me - that would be the first warning, not the third. --Candide, or Optimism 01:15, 31 January 2006 (UTC)

Check the latest exploits by Anittas' buddy. --Ghirla | talk 18:33, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

Kven

(placeholder)

History of Russians in Latvia

Please check this edit. --Ghirla | talk 08:47, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

Gomphothere

Interesting. What makes the Gomphothere unsuitable as a COTW, in your opinion? – Quadell (talk) (bounties) 21:52, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

DYK

Updated DYK query Did you know? has been updated. A fact from the article Children of Lieutenant Schmidt, which you recently created, has been featured in that section on the Main Page. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the "Did you know?" talk page.

--Gurubrahma 17:47, 6 February 2006 (UTC)

Reverted new postings of phobia?

Hello! I was just wondering why you reverted my edits on the article -phobia on 6 February 2006. I was planning to write new articles about these phobias. Moreover, I feel that these terms should be included in the page as they exist in the English language. I was about to fill in more terms when I saw my edits being reverted. I hope I get a response soon within 24 hours. Thank You! --Siva1979Talk to me 20:00, 6 February 2006 (UTC)

Talk:Gediminas, Grand Duke of Lithuania

We need a third opinion here. Thanks for your time, Ghirla | talk 13:49, 7 February 2006 (UTC)


Children of Lieutenant Schmidt

Uvazhaemiy Mikkalai,

I see you have changed back some of my rewording of this article. Believe me that the changes I proposed were out of admiration, as I am a great fan of the velikiy kombinator and his adventures. But the article risks losing attention from your use of English in a non-colloquial manner. Although your English is certainly better than my Russian, you can imagine all sorts of errors I would make if I contributed to Russian Wikipedia, and you would be keen (and quite right) to correct them. As this bit of Wikipedia is an English language encyclopaedia, please do not resent those of us who wish to present your contributions in the best light. Vsego dobrogo --Smerus 15:02, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

Thank for your comments on my talkpage. Let's go through the three examples. 'Men of revolution' means nothing in English - it is just not an English phrase. You seem to want to mean somerthing like 'revolutionary idealogues' in the examples you give. However, Lieutenant Schmidt himself hardly qualifies in this category. I am away from my reference books in London (in fact I have just now walked across the Lieutnenant Schmidt bridge) but I rather think we know little of Schmidt's ideology (save as it has been transformed by the Soviet era).
I think I've found the neutral word I wanted: "revolutionary figure" (here "revolutionary" is an adjective, meaning "related to revolution is one way or another"). mikka (t) 18:44, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

'Chernobyl liquidators' is a phrase I have not come across and is not known in English. I understand now (I think) exactly what you intended - perhaps 'organisers of the Chernobyl cover-up' would meet the case?

I suspect not much is known in English besides the fact it was a "big bang" :-) :-(. Please look up the term via google to understand its meaning. The term means "people who carried out Chernobyl clean-up", ie those who did a dirty and dangerous job. They were issued a special certificate that provided for various social benefits. On the other hand, "Chernobyl cover-up" was done by Communist Party functionaries, (which always had benefits one way or another :-). So unless there is another English term I am not aware of, it looks like I have to write the Chernobyl liquidator article. mikka (t)

'Man of enterprise/spontaneity' - I suggest, therefore, 'great improviser' which approximates to 'velikiy kombinator' and sounds natural in English, which the others don't.

Excellent idea. mikka (t) 18:44, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

Hope this is helpful; with best regards--Smerus 18:28, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

Most surely it was helpful, thanks a lot. mikka (t) 18:44, 7 February 2006 (UTC)
PS: My grandmother was born in Kishinev - which might just make me by extension a Romanian/Moldovan Wikipedian.--Smerus 18:28, 7 February 2006 (UTC)
OK I have just had a go at Radiophobia - not so easy. Re Chernobyl cover-up, yes there was an excellent documentary on British TV just two weeks ago which told us for the first time about these people - i think if you are going to use the term 'liquidator' you should provide a supplementary explanation - or (I agree) write an article about them. 'Revolutionary figure' is perfect. --Smerus 19:21, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

NC1 and NCRP

Greetings. The rds I created, NC1 and NCRP were culled from Wikipedia:WikiProject Missing encyclopedic articles, specifically the N hotlist. These entries exist on PC Magazine's "Encyclopedia of Computing Terms", one of the sources for the hotlist, here and here. I don't think a simple reference profile for network computers merited its own article, since there's not much more than a paragraph that can ever be written about it; but many people on the MEA project feel that it's best to have redirects to larger articles in these cases. I'm not sure what you want me to fix. All the best, – Quadell (talk) (bounties) 20:08, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

Okay, thanks for your work, but there's really no need to be hostile. – Quadell (talk) (bounties) 20:18, 7 February 2006 (UTC)
Well, tone aside, you certainly are improving Wikipedia. Network Computer Reference Profile looks great. – Quadell (talk) (bounties) 20:28, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

List of subcamps of Natzweiler-Struthof

I have put the article up for deletion before I noticed it was created by a notable user. Could you comment at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of subcamps of Natzweiler-Struthof about it? If there's good reasoning it obviously shouldn't be deleted. Thanks. gren グレン ? 03:50, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

Polonization and Russophobia

Hi Mikkalai, would you care to explain how and which Polonization is relevant to Russophobia ? --Lysytalk 07:02, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

I have already explained in the edit comment to Russophobia: Polonization is immediately relevant to the sentence where it is mentioned. If you cannot read carefully, I cannot help you, sorry. mikka (t) 07:48, 10 February 2006 (UTC)
There's no need to be rude. I understand that the examples are relevant to the sentence and the sentence is relevant to the article, but that does not mean that the examples are relevant to the article. In fact this is misleading, as it suggest what Poles attempted to Polonize Russians since 11th century. Otherwise, why is this example given ? --Lysytalk 07:59, 10 February 2006 (UTC)
I suggest you to take a longer wikibreak and take courses in logic and comprehension. All your three sentences are wrong. I have better things to do in wikipedia than to teach you logic. mikka (t) 08:16, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

If you are interested, please check recent edit history from the History of Poland (1939–1945) and its talk. --Irpen 02:01, 14 February 2006 (UTC)

Lithuania

Mikka, a wiki break would apparently do you good as well ;) Anyway, I took the liberty to remove your cat from the article on Central Lithuania, as the territory did not belong to the USSR after the revolution (it did after 1944, but not after the revolution). Also, I reinstated the mention of the critisizm of the census in the article (well, rather an unfinished sketch) on ethnic composition of the region. The reason is that the article should list not only the plain data, but also some more info on why is it disputed by someone - or not. Halibutt 02:05, 11 February 2006 (UTC)

Image copyright problem with Image:Samovar.jpg

Thanks for uploading Image:Samovar.jpg. However, the image may soon be deleted unless we can determine the copyright holder and copyright status. The Wikimedia Foundation is very careful about the images included in Wikipedia because of copyright law (see Wikipedia's Copyright policy).

The copyright holder is usually the creator, the creator's employer, or the last person who was transferred ownership rights. Copyright information on images is signified using copyright templates. The three basic license types on Wikipedia are open content, public domain, and fair use. Find the appropriate template in Wikipedia:Image copyright tags and place it on the image page like this: {{TemplateName}}.

Please signify the copyright information on any other images you have uploaded or will upload. Remember that images without this important information can be deleted by an administrator. If you have any questions, feel free to contact me. Thank you. Thuresson 16:08, 11 February 2006 (UTC)

Kven

I understand your predicament with this article and I think that the best thing you can do is to demand that users translate their sources into English. This demand is backed up by guidelines and reasonable in cases such as these where original research is suspected. I mean, we do not want to cause unnecessary work for other editors, but in this case this demand seems justified. Andries 17:26, 12 February 2006 (UTC)

your revert of Leonid Brezhnev

not sure why you reverted edits to this article - it was simply linking of dates to support preference based date formatting. [3]. I have reverted again. --Ali@gwc.org.uk 03:41, 13 February 2006 (UTC)

Please keep in mind that to wikilink years and days all over an article is meaningless. Example: "his orders are dated June 22". What is so special about a date of the order of his draft? Please take a look into the "Overlinking" article. mikka (t) 04:02, 13 February 2006 (UTC)
Agree with you regarding years when they are on their own, but see [4] and Wikipedia:Manual of Style (dates_and_numbers)#Date formatting for why dates should be linked. IMO there should be a way of marking a date for processing by the date preference code without wikilinking it but at the moment there is not. --Ali@gwc.org.uk 04:11, 13 February 2006 (UTC)
In other words, there is nothing particularly significant about these dates, but linking them makes them appear in each user's preferred format. --Ali@gwc.org.uk 04:17, 13 February 2006 (UTC)
I see. <shrug>. It strikes me as a brain-twisted attitude to make humans to do purely mechanical computer's work. If wikiware cannot smartly process dates yet (who really seriously needs this feature, anyway?), I would advice to write a bot (or ask someone smart to write a bot) to do these substitutions. IMO, it is a trivial programming job. mikka (t) 04:24, 13 February 2006 (UTC)

Romanization of Belarusian

I recently created this new article. Would you please have a look over it for mistakes? Thanks. —Michael Z. 2006-02-13 23:28 Z

Your edit to the table notes showed me that they weren't getting the intended point across. They were based on a description that treated Łacinka as if it were a system for transliteration from Cyrillic, but of course it's based on a different system of phonemic representation. I've rewritten the notes for Łacinka again, to hopefully better express its differences from the Cyrillic alphabet—please have another look.
Keep in mind that I'm trying to do this despite not speaking or reading Belarusian, so be patient with my blundering. Thanks. —Michael Z. 2006-02-14 23:25 Z

Impostered

Hi Mikkalai, I thought you might like to know about this edit. Snottygobble 05:37, 14 February 2006 (UTC)

Please use

English in talks with other members besides personal pages and regional notice boards. What did the quote mean ? : Sidyat dva lobotryasa, skuchayut. "Slysh', Ivan, delat' nechego skukotishcha!" - "A von dva obloma navstrechu idut. CHto-to oni mne ne nravyatsya. Davaj dadim im v lob!" - "Nu-u, a esli oni nam navalyayut?" - "A nam-to za chto?" Please translate. --Molobo 11:19, 14 February 2006 (UTC)

Whether Molobo or not but 81.31.160.4 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · block user · block log) who was trolling at Russophobia lately is an open proxy see this. --Irpen 17:25, 14 February 2006 (UTC)

Mikka, when blocking open proxies, please don't forget to leave the {{open proxy}} at their userpages. --Irpen 17:44, 14 February 2006 (UTC)

Mikka could you please translate ? I am curious what you said and I would like to read it. --Molobo 19:13, 14 February 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The Odin Brotherhood

Hi. It's been brought up that you both opened and closed this AFD debate, and, partially for that reason, it is now at DRV. The article will likely remain deleted, but there seems to be a general consensus that closing an AFD that you made the nomination for is not good. Some of us think you should be slapped on the wrist, so consider your wrist slapped. And in the future please don't do this. It might be okay for unanimous deletes, but even then it's generally just better to let another admin do it. Thanks. -R. fiend 04:44, 15 February 2006 (UTC)

Well, nevertheless, one really shouldn't close an AFD they opened at all really, just to preserve the notion of impartiality. Even closing one that one has participated in is often considered a faux pas. This one was particularly problematical, as it involved discounting newbies, and there was a rewrite in the middle of it. An AFD which has even a single vote to keep can be considered controversial. Just something to keep in mind. -R. fiend 07:05, 15 February 2006 (UTC)
Nevertheless, for propreity's sake, it's best not to close AFD's one has instigated. It's not like it takes any extra effort to do so. In fact it takes less effort. If the end result is not in doubt, then why not let another editor do it? They'll come to the same conclusion. -R. fiend 07:40, 15 February 2006 (UTC)
Whatever. There's no need to get bend out of shape over it. If you can't see how the illusion of impropriety might be presented by being both the plantiff and judge in a case, then there's little I can say. But you should keep in mind what's stated at Wikipedia:Deletion guidelines for administrators: "As a general rule, don't delete pages you nominate for deletion. Let someone else do it." Seems like pretty decent advice to me. -R. fiend 08:28, 15 February 2006 (UTC)

Skopje

Thanks for clearing the mess. Actually, I used the move button, but, it seems, unappropriatelly. I tried to restore my edits, but it appears that the page is protected? I cannot see who protected the page, I will wait until its unprotection in order to add my edits. Maybe you can help around this. Thanks Bitola 10:36, 16 February 2006 (UTC)


Odin

While I agree with the deletion of the article on the Odin Brotherhood, two aspects of your closing the AfD surprised me, namely: 1) You, as the nominator of the article closed the debate and 2) A straightforward count of "valid" votes was given as part of the rationale for closing said debate. I'm not sure about policy on the first count (dealt with above) but AfD's are never simply based on "votes"... My concern is that some on the other side of the debate could see this as an abuse of adminship. You're clearly a very dedicated WP admin & editor which is great, I just feel it would have added more credibility to the closure of this debate if it had been left to a neutral admin to weigh the argument and make the decision. ++Deiz 11:11, 16 February 2006 (UTC)

Brest, Belarus

Brest, Belarus [5]

Can you please tell me why you reverted my additions to the last version by Alex7?

The map of where Brest is located is very useful.

04:07, 16 February 2006 Alex756 m (rmv redundant external lks)

02:11, 16 February 2006 69.3.119.228

Larry Schenker [lpsca@earthlink.net]

Larry Schenker (Binenbaum) from Los Angeles, California, United States 17:15, 16 February 2006 (UTC)

Category:Post-Russian Revolution states

I noticed that you decided to reapply the Category:Post-Russian Revolution states to Central Lithuania. May I kindly ask you why don't you apply the same category to articles on Vatican City, Saudi Arabia, Iraq, Lebanon, Iceland, Korea, Indonesia, Vietnam, Syria, Jordan, Pakistan, India, Republic of Ireland, Burma, Sri Lanka, Israel, Federal Republic of Germany, Laos, Bhutan, People's Republic of China, German Democratic Republic, Libya, Cambodia, and all the states that were created after the Russian revolution? After all all of these had as much to do with the revolution itself as Central Lithuania and all of these were created after the revolution happened... Halibutt 18:28, 16 February 2006 (UTC)

[(off-topic personal: It looks like something had happened to you. Half a year ago when I last discussed with you various topics you had a sharper understanding. Did these Polish-Russian wars damage something?)]
Did you look into the charter of the category before asking this question? Do you really need me to explain the difference between Lithuania and Zanzibar with respect to Russian Revolution? mikka (t) 20:42, 16 February 2006 (UTC)
Perhaps comments like these did change something. Anyway, I was not trying to offend you in any way, I simply thought that you'd catch the irony in my comment. Apparently you didn't, so I'm rephrasing it: in my honest oppinion the relation between a state that was formed in the effect of the Polish-Lithuanian conflict of 1922 and the Russian revolution of 1917 is obscure, to say the least. The Republic of Central Lithuania was neither formed because of the revolution nor during it. I kindly ask you to explain the connection between the Russian revolution and Central Lithuania before you put back the category. I know that the communist propaganda portrayed the independence of much of Central and Eastern Europe as a consequence of one of Lenin's speeches in which he gave those states (he did not have influence on whatsoever) a right to secede, though this doesn't hold the water at all.
Also, I do not monitor your talk page so please respond at my talk page rather than yours. Halibutt 11:39, 17 February 2006 (UTC)
As I got no explanation so far, I decided to correct the description of the category in question. Hopefully it is clear now that the category is meant to prove some point now rather than describe some phenomenon. Halibutt 02:41, 18 February 2006 (UTC)
Huh? mikka (t) 03:05, 18 February 2006 (UTC)

Kven/Version

I took the liberty of removing Category:Finnish people from Kven/Version, as it's for people, not for peoples. I noticed you protected the article and wrote "it will be deleted soon" on January 31st. It's now been 17 days since that and the article has had no further edits by you or anyone else. What is your definition of "soon"? JIP | Talk 09:06, 17 February 2006 (UTC)

Bonny is back

Check this clownshow --Ghirla | talk 13:40, 17 February 2006 (UTC)

This Ghirlo is a crazy man.--Yodo 13:46, 17 February 2006 (UTC)

Liberty Dollar

I've nominated this article for deletion. I'm notifying you because you contributed. BrianGCrawfordMA 23:06, 17 February 2006 (UTC)

A newbie biting rescue

Hi Mikka, I guess it's not strictly your patch but I wonder if you wouldn't mind leaving some messages for the creator / editors on Ethnical cleansing in Croatia letting them know what thye are doing wrong and what to do if they want to get their views included? Just zis  Guy, you know? [T]/[C] 23:29, 17 February 2006 (UTC)

More Liberty Dollar

After further research and reflection, I've come to believe that the Liberty Dollar entry should be merged with "Private currency" or "Community money" and redirected accordingly. This merge would help put this controversial topic into a broader context it desperately needs. Thank you for your participation. BrianGCrawfordMA 18:32, 18 February 2006 (UTC)

Question

Some polish/baltic POV warrior typed this in my talk page:

Этот участник не понимает по-русски (или понимает с большим трудом).

Could you please tell me what does it means? I can't read russian (or belorrusian if that is the case). Thanks! Messhermit 17:37, 19 February 2006 (UTC)

Hymn of the Russian Federation

Other than the 1991-2000 history of the readoption of the anthem, I was wondering if you wish to suggest anything else that could be added to the article. Thanks. User:Zscout370 (Return Fire) Fair use policy 06:53, 20 February 2006 (UTC)


Slavic Europe

Regarding this absurd classification: Oh Mikka please, present me a scholary work that claims Poles and Russians posses the same cultural identity. As to your remark about Ukraine-you believe Poland sits in the same chair as Ukraine when it comes to arguments about being classified as part of Russian sphere ? "The fact is that the term exists and people use it and don't care about our internal disagreements." For there to be internal disagreements you would have to speak about some shared entity. As far as I believe Poland and Russia are just like any other different countries when it comes to each other, and not part of some unified block. And anyway as I said-there is no such thing as Slavic identity, I do understand that some in Russia believe in "Slavic" idenity, but hardly people of Poland Czechoslovakia. The term is very POV and ignores huge cultural and historic divisions. As I understand many Russian nationalists used also this term to justify Russian expansionism. --Molobo 08:30, 20 February 2006 (UTC)


Care to comment ?

[6] Ghirla puts modern geographical names, erasing names of countries that Catherine annexed.What do you think. --Molobo 12:53, 20 February 2006 (UTC)

Salo in Space

I noticed you contributed to the article Salo in Space, and I was hoping you could help me glean some more information about it. I visited its web site, but since I don't speak the language, I wasn't able to learn much. Mainly I'd like to know the name of the author, but other details, such as when it came online and how often it's updated would be useful as well. The reason I'm asking is I'd like to add the webcomic infobox to it and then put it on the list of webcomics. Thanks. –Abe Dashiell (t/c) 16:53, 20 February 2006 (UTC)

UA census

Mikka, did I understabd correctly from a couple of edits that uou are about to write a UA census article? This article is very much needed. I never got to that and I do not see myself having time to spend much time on it these days, but if you need help with refs and/or with Ukrainian (3 language versions of the census site are not totally equivalent), I would be happy to do what I can. In no way I want to pressure you in working on that. I just got the impression from these edits that you might be planning to do that and stopped by to offer help. Cheers, --Irpen 19:47, 20 February 2006 (UTC)

Thanks! I will get to it when I can. --Irpen 22:24, 20 February 2006 (UTC)

re RFA:AB2

Don't worry, it's not necessary. Christopher Parham (talk) 08:15, 21 February 2006 (UTC)

Liberty Dollar

FYI, I do appreciate your efforts on Liberty Dollar, and it if weren't for you and others it'd be far worse. I agree with your assessment of the product, and am personally astonished that there hasn't been more coverage of this group in the larger media. Aside from other repurcussions that means a lack of sources here, which as been my worry. In any case, I stand behind all efforts to keep this article NPOV and Verifiable. Cheers, -Will Beback 10:32, 21 February 2006 (UTC)

Requested moves

Talk:Medininkai Incident and Talk:Rainiai executions - what is your opinion about the renaming of these pages to their original names Medininkai massacre and Rainiai massacre? --—Ghirla | talk 14:42, 21 February 2006 (UTC)

Re: Images

This is in reply to the concerns you expressed on my talk page regarding the images I have uploaded. Being a new Wikipedian and egregiously ignorant of copyright laws, I am not sure if I chose the correct option under "Licensing." Both images I have uploaded (Statue of Taras Shevchenko and grave of Ivan Franko) were photographs taken by me. I would be deeply grateful if you could tell me which I licensing option I should have used and what I should do to fix any problems. Pied beauty 07:37, 22 February 2006 (UTC)

Дякую, dear sir, for your assistance. The apporopriate changes to those files have been made. Pied beauty 04:24, 23 February 2006 (UTC)

CAD companies

I agree with your removing the list of external links in the Solid Modeling page. But what is your logic for removing some of the companies/packages in the list of CAD companies page?

Complain at the b'crat board

I think you should know about this. --Irpen 17:12, 22 February 2006 (UTC)

Nagorno-Karabakh

If you aren't too busy could you make your opinion known at the NK RFC - Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Nagorno-Karabakh. Thanks :) - FrancisTyers 11:46, 23 February 2006 (UTC)

Slavic Europe

I added major expansion about divisions in the article. --Molobo 12:04, 23 February 2006 (UTC)

AfD

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Jason Bennett - what do you think? --Ghirla | talk 16:28, 25 February 2006 (UTC)

Arthur Szyk - clerc or hero?

According to a Polish biography (quoted in Polish Wikipedia), he was a brave soldier. The LC doesn't mention it. Aren't both stories true? Xx236 11:29, 27 February 2006 (UTC)

I mean http://www.diapozytyw.pl/pl/site/ludzie/artur_szyk Xx236 12:46, 28 February 2006 (UTC)

Small question

Hallo,

I have a small question to ask to a russian language speaker, and you are the most reliable I know. We have a user back at ro.wiki who would like to use a photo from the page http://www.primer.ru/std/gallery_std2/m_tub.htm. If you have some time, could you look a little bit on the website's disclaimer if those photos are usable and if yes under which conditions? Thank you in advance! Mihai -talk 21:07, 27 February 2006 (UTC)

Thank you very much. Mihai -talk 07:37, 28 February 2006 (UTC)
Thanks once again. Mihai -talk 09:12, 4 March 2006 (UTC)

Slavic Europe

Ghirla is acting aggresive again. Names Poland a fringe country(though it is the third or second biggest when it comes to having number of people from countries listed in the entry), deletes references, talks something about me wishing "Slavs" didn't exist etc. Care to join ? I really don't understand Ghirla. He is simply too strange with his statements for me. I don't know even what he is talking about. --Molobo 18:33, 28 February 2006 (UTC)

Molobo, you were blocked for 48 hours. You have ample time time to rethink your behaviour. Your constant delations remind me of Pavlik Morozov, if you know this boy. --Ghirla -трёп- 18:01, 2 March 2006 (UTC)

False Friends of the Slavist

Please have a look at wikibooks:False Friends of the Slavist. With your language skills, you can help us very much there. See wikibooks:Talk:False Friends of the Slavist for details on what is still needed. --Daniel Bunčić 18:20, 1 March 2006 (UTC)

Rant

Please take a look. This guy is a bore and I have no more energy to fight him. --Ghirla -трёп- 18:04, 2 March 2006 (UTC)

Demkina revert

If you're going to revert me, at least tell me why. I'm a fairly active participant in the article, I'm readily available. - Keith D. Tyler 01:25, 4 March 2006 (UTC)

I don't long for chats with persons who defend kooks and delete links to prominent scientists. mikka (t) 01:58, 4 March 2006 (UTC)

Bonny

He logged in again. His first action was to snatch a couple of userboxes from my user page (as he had done before). Check his other contributions, they are pretty obvious. --Ghirla -трёп- 18:49, 4 March 2006 (UTC)

In respect to your comment at WP:RCU, please take a quick look at my proposal at its talk. I left a message pointing to this entry at the talk pages of every wikipedian in m:Checkuser list but only one or two responded and nothing was done. If you have any ideas or interest in proceeding with this, pls do so and I will help. --Irpen 19:41, 7 March 2006 (UTC)

decat in pollination

Hello Mikkalai - I was wondering why you took Pollination out of the biological reproduction category. It seems perfectly suited to it. Thanks for explaining. Debivort 07:52, 5 March 2006 (UTC)

Outrage over Natasha Demkina Mediation

Hi Mikkalai, were you aware that Rohirok was assigned to mediate the Natasha Demkina case? I wasn't. I just found out and found out as well that he and Dreadlocke have been exchanging friendly notes assuring each other that they are in agreement. I am so outraged over this mockery of mediation. I sent the following protest to Fasten requesting that a different mediator be assigned.

-Andrew


I see that Rohirok was assigned to mediate the Natasha Demkina case. And I also just saw that he posted this note to one guy who wants to include references that I have been arguing violate Wiki guidelines regarding reputable sources.
"I've been assigned the Demkina mediation case. I will do my best to work toward a NPOV in the article, and I agree that the article ought to include a description of Nobel Laureate Professor Brian Josephson's problems with the CSICOP researchers' scientific methodology. I must disclose that I am skeptical of the paranormal, a former subscriber to Skeptical Inquirer, and a former intern at CSICOP's international headquarters, though I have never met Skolnick. That said, I don't think the article should at all push CSICOP's agenda. A reader of the article should not get the impression that the article itself is making a case for or against Demkina's purported paranormal abilities.
I can assign another mediator to the case, if you wish. Rohirok 03:47, 2 March 2006 (UTC)
What kind of mediator starts off mediation by writing one side of the dispute saying that he agrees with them? Rohirok did not write me with the same offer; I would take it. That's why I'm writing you. I want a different mediator assigned -- not one that comes to the mediation table already agreeing with one side.
Rohirok appears to have the same point of view as Dreadlocke and his supporters, that the Natasha Demkina article should give equal weight to the views of Natasha's supporters, even if it means citing non-reputable sources, such as the personal web sites of kooks who have never published anything related to the field in peer-reviewed science journals. I would like a mediator who comes to the table respecting Wiki editing guidelines and policies. Thank you.
Askolnick 05:16, 6 March 2006 (UTC)
If I may add another point: I only found out a couple hours ago that Rohirok was assigned to be mediator. He's never informed me, either privately or on the Natsha Demkina Discussion page. But as you can see from his and Dreadlocke's personal Talk pages, they have been exchanging greetings and complements now for several days. Is this the kind of mediation that is practiced in Wikipedia? I think this is outrageous.
And please take a look at what Rohirok has already argued on the Natasha Demkina talk page. He entered the discussion in support of using non-reputable personal web sites (without identifying himself as having been assigned to be mediator!): "It is fine to reference sources that are considered disreputable if they document the fact that certain claims are being made," he wrote. That is exactly the claim that I am disputing and he comes into the forum and starts off with his verdict. Only, I didn't have a clue that it was a verdict. I had no idea he was the assigned moderator. So now that he's issued his verdict, when does the trial start? I'm feeling like Alice in Wikiland.
I don't think Rohirok should ever again be assigned to moderate any dispute between editors. Askolnick 05:16, 6 March 2006 (UTC)

Askolnick 05:36, 6 March 2006 (UTC)

Re: National emblem of Belarus

Given that I have never spoken to anyone who has edited the page before, I find your accusations of "buddyism" rather unfounded. It's only a revert war if you choose to see it that way, and, frankly, your edits are removing well-sourced content. Your completely uninformed comment on the article's FAC nomination did nothing for your credibility, either. —Cuiviénen (Cuivië) 22:45, 6 March 2006 (UTC)

Mikka, relax my friend. I am willing to work with y'all to make sure that the article is good in your eyes. If you also wish for the article to appear at WP:AID, go right ahead, I will support that move. I think everyone should just calm down, I am willing to work with everyone on this article. I do need the more eyes, I do need the copyediting, though with the POV issues, I tried to not introduce it on purpose (and I will not restore it either, unless you say I could). Thanks. User:Zscout370 (Return Fire) Fair use policy 00:59, 7 March 2006 (UTC)
I never had problems with you. It is others who jump in while having no idea what is actually written in the article and judging solely from overall appearance. Kind of arranging books by size on a bookshelf. mikka (t) 01:13, 7 March 2006 (UTC)
I will calm the other parties down too. Petaholmes has been pretty civil about it all, and most of the information that she is asking for can easily be found. I have the results of the May 1995 referendum (74 percent of votes said they support the new symbols), but USAID and the CSCE said the elections were not fair due to complex voting rules. User:Zscout370 (Return Fire) Fair use policy 02:27, 7 March 2006 (UTC)

Sukhum

User:Papa Carlo moved Sukhum (an Abkhazian name of the city) to Sukhumi (a Georgian name) by copy&paste, despite remonstrances on the part of User:Khoikhoi. Please help to save the article's history. Thanks, Ghirla -трёп- 07:05, 7 March 2006 (UTC)

Something is wrong here. I moved the article from Sukhumi to Sukhum last summer, but the move is missing from the history. --Ghirla -трёп- 07:22, 7 March 2006 (UTC)
Although I appreciate your help in restoring the article's history to normalcy, I don't think that Sukhumi is the proper name. It is passing out of use in Russia and, when I went to Gagra last year, I never heard it used it Abkhazia as well. Probably a vote would be helpful to determine which name is proper. Previously, the subject was discussed on User talk:Khoikhoi and User talk:Papa Carlo. --Ghirla -трёп- 17:40, 7 March 2006 (UTC)
But wait, the page has been at Sukhum until it was moved by User:An account on 7 Feb. Besides, why aren't we using the Abkhazian name? --Khoikhoi 07:27, 7 March 2006 (UTC)
I already talked with Papa Carlo for about a day about this. Why are we using the Georgian name? --Khoikhoi 07:34, 7 March 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for the Good Advice

Thanks Mikkalai. Actually, I get very energized trying to drive wooden stakes through the hearts of these vampires. :-)

I guess that I'm just following my lifelong policy of not turning a cheek a second time to attackers. I grew up on the streets of New York City and I guess it shows. I'm determined to make attackers pay at least something for their attacks. I found that taking it silently often makes them think you're an easy mark.

For example, Ettinsilly aka all those other names, did not come here to contribute to Wikipedia. He came here to defend his TM cult and try to discredit its critics, mainly CSICOP, Skeptical Inquirer, and me. It's no coincidence that he started off trying to rewrite two Wiki articles by attacking two pubications of which I authored! I don't know Dreadlocke's situation, but it's clear that he too has an anti-skeptic agenda for which he is willing to offer the most transparent deceptions (like his current claim that "professional researchers" don't have to do and publish any research).

I don't have much confidence in the way Wiki works. Hatchetmen are allowed to work with apparent impunity. And mediation seems to be a joke -- sending in a mediator who immediately starts communicating with one side, hides the fact that he's the mediator from the other side, and begins editing the article! Hardly reassuring.

For almost 15 years, TMers have attacked and vilified me. They even sued me and the editor of JAMA for $194 million! in a frivilous harassment suit. Even though the suit was very quickly dismissed, they continue to lie that it was "settled for an undisclose amount of money." The AMA kept turning other cheeks to these defamers. I won't. About a year ago, the TM cult in Germany put up a bunch of documents libeling me, claiming that JAMA published a retraction and even included a fascimile of a forged letter from the PR office of Ohio State University. So, there's some pretty unpleasant history here. Fortunately, these TMers are not Scientologists. Which is probably why my body hasn't yet been found floating in some river or lake.

Anyway, your advice is very sound. Although, I'm not likely to adhere to it closely. You know that joke about the scorpion and the frog? It's just my nature to sting back. :-o Askolnick 15:06, 7 March 2006 (UTC)