User talk:Ghirlandajo/Winter 2006

DYK

Did you know? has been updated. A fact from the article Alla Bayanova, 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 13:47, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

DYK

Did you know? has been updated. A fact from the article Marble Palace, 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 12:10, 11 January 2006 (UTC) [reply]

Some observations

Hi Ghirla, thanks a ton for your compliments about my behavior as an admin.

Originally DYK seems to have been restricted to articles less than 72 hours old. However, after some deliberations (some of these may still be found on the talkpage of WP:DYK or its archives), it was decided to extend it to 120 hours old articles; also, all stubs significantly expanded (at least 3-4 times the original length and > 500 words) would qualify within five days of being expanded. However, it would be ideal for you to mention that "it is technically a new article, as it was a stub till date." or some such thing so that the updating admin doesn't dismiss it as an old article.

While I have not interacted much with you, I have respect for the contributions you have made and also strongly believe that great injustice was done to you by mis-applying the 3RR rule. However, the solution is not to leave Wikipedia. It is my opinion that it would not be easy to improve the admin pool without you yourself being a part of it. I'm sure that your being a part of the system would help in its improvement. I do not know the reasons as to why you do not want to become an admin. I would strongly urge you to stand for admin and I am ready to nominate you after due diligence. Should you accept, yours would be my first nomination and I'd feel happy that I've nominated a worthy person for admin, regardless of the result. Becoming an admin would also give you some additional privileges and responsibilities - from what I have seen so far of you, I feel that you will fit the role to a T. Please consider my proposal carefully. I'd be ok with your response being either way, but I'd prefer you to stand for an admin. Thanks for your time, --Gurubrahma 12:10, 11 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Open proxy

I have blocked 212.179.19.131 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log) indefinitely as an open proxy. Here is proof - I was able to edit through it [1]. Do you have any idea who it is? ;-) Izehar 17:44, 11 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, I see. Thank you for this courtesy. --Ghirla | talk 17:46, 11 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I guess you were right - about the nationalist trolls. Izehar 17:51, 11 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Red

Hi Ghirlandajo. I trimmed again some of the red at Alex's requests for adminship, but left more. So, out of two consecutive paragraphs in red I left one.

By the way, it is a bad idea to use red, bold, and sometimes capitals at the same time. People are not blind. Making things bold should be enough for people to notice. Please do not make it look strident. There is NO REASON for me to write like this in order that you understand what I mean! . :) Right? Oleg Alexandrov (talk) 19:31, 11 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Nixer

Andrei, how do you deal with Nixer? As you probably know, he has been blocked again, this time for a week [2] for violating the 3RR on Comparative military ranks of World War II (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) and Basque language (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). You'll never believe what the troll did; he nominated one of the articles for deletion when he realised that all other editors weren't having any of his nonsense. He has been conducting some magnificently bold edit wars, but I fail to see why. He knows that he'll end up being reverted. You seem experienced with Wikipedia:Trolls, how do you deal with them? I'm dreading his block expiring. Izehar 19:37, 11 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks

I would like to express my thanks to all the good people who spent their valuable time time and effort working on my (failed) RfA voting. Especially for those who actually voted to support me :). Ghirla, I cannot find strong enough to thank you for your effort on this RfA. Lets move on and make together our Wikipedia an even greater place abakharev 09:57, 12 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Re: Querry

Hi, I can't rely speculate on why you where not notified about the images. It's not strictly required to do so, though it's defenently considered the polite ting to do (not nessesarily about every image, but at least once to notify people that images without source/license info will be deleted). Unfortunately there is a huge number of images that lack such info and after tagging a few thousand images some people tend to start ignoring the notification step. Anyway the images in question where all deleted by User:JesseW. For future reference you can look up the page and filenames on the Special:Log page to see how deleted them and stuff like that. Hope that answers your questions. --Sherool (talk) 19:49, 12 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Common success

Ghirla, we have been fighting (and probably will be doing this more in future :), but this:

Did you know? has been updated. A fact from the article Yaroslav Osmomysl, 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.

is also yours as I was too lasy to translate more info and expand the article the way you did. And I write this not because Irpen asked me :). Really. Yes, one more thing. I think we will not only fight, but also will get couple of more "medals" like this one.--Bryndza 04:52, 13 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Kronstadt

Regarding the article Kronstadt - can we talk this over on the talk page? Talk:Kronstadt -- Rediahs 08:38, 13 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment on RfA

Hi Ghirla, you commented that you are sceptical of admins who don't write articles; I can understand that. I do write articles :-) See for example Sidney Cotton, Bicycle lighting, David Silsoe, some contribs to de Havilland Mosquito, Robert Hooke and Robert Gunther, a rewrite of Simon Wessely to fix acute POV issues, stubs at torque sensor and crank sensor, and a whole load of minor edits surrounding Category:organ (music) and the horn (instrument), including Barry Tuckwell, Carlo Curley and others. So don't worry, I haven't forgotten that we're supposed to be writing an encyclopaedia :-D - JzG 10:57, 13 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

OK. Scanning through your recent contributions, I just noticed that most of them belong to the talk and admin pages. I readily support your nomination, of course. --Ghirla | talk 11:00, 13 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I am active in the Project space too (more than the main, really), right now there's an RFA and an RFC in process so probably more than ususal in Talk and Project. Thanks for the vote :-) - Just zis Guy, you know? ^[T]/_[C]

AfD? 12:51, 13 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Featured list candidates

Could you take a moment to view the nomination for my List of notable brain tumor patients? It's up for featured list status and has gotten only one vote in three days. The list includes a Russian: cosmonaut Anatoli Levchenko. Best wishes, Durova 17:50, 13 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Bagration.jpg name conflict

Hi, I have "renamed" the file (uploaded it with a new name and deleted the old one) so Image:Bagration.jpg is now the file from commons. The old file is now located at Image:Pyotr Bagration portrait.jpg. This is unfortunately the only way to solve the problem with a local image "blocking" a file on commons with the same name but different content, there is (to my knowledge) no way to "force" a file from commons to be used if the name is "taken" localy. --Sherool (talk) 18:08, 13 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Sockpuppets?

OK thanks - I'll request a sockpuppet check and I'll perform an open proxy check on his IP, just to be on the safe side. I have been spending some time at the Moldovan Wikipedia and you wouldn't believe the trolling that's going on there. Bonaparte is there of course, trolling as usual and insisting that everyone speak Romanian. The problem is that I don't know Romanian, so when I had a few words in Russian with a Moldovan user who could not speak English, they all nearly bit my head off. Look at what they have been telling me at my talk page [3]. That mo:user:Ditae must be the fiercest nationalist I have ever seen. Is there a mutual dislike between Romanians and Russians that I don't know about? Anyway, the page where Bonaparte is doing his handy work now is at [4]. A group of Romanian users are trying to get the Moldovan Wikipedia closed down. Izehar 01:30, 15 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

OK so tell me; Bonny's been banned, AndriyK's going to be banned, how many trolls left? Izehar 18:30, 16 January 2006 (UTC) (PS Bonaparte is probably reading this right now - Hi Bonaparte)[reply]

Check your e-mail then. --Ghirla | talk 18:43, 16 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted Images

I've responded on my talk page. JesseW, the juggling janitor 02:21, 14 January 2006 (UTC)

I confess, review of Image:Krom.jpg, Image:Krutitsy.jpg, and Image:Zvenigorod.jpg shows it was me who marked them as no source and didn't follow up with any notification. I don't remember the exact circumstances, but if I even noticed you as the uploader, I probably thought that since our previous discussion of untagged images, you would have gone back and fixed up your previous uploads (which would save time all around). Sorry about that; I've now slowed down a bit on image crunching and am taking more time to ping people about their uploads. Stan 14:33, 14 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks

Thanks for the message here User talk:Giano/Sandbox I've only just seen it, for some stupid reason I don't have that page on my watchlist (it is now). It's just a few thoughts I'm working on. He does not seem to be very well researched, and what there is seems to be in my oppinion either biased, ingratiatingly psycophantic, and in the only comprehensive article I can find, to have had interesting if not vital information surpressed by the Catholic Church. Which is probably why the two wikipedia articles on his buildings have differing facts. If you know anything leave it on the talk page - I often work on these pages like that for months and then never finish them. Giano | talk 15:23, 14 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you!

Thanks for supporting me on my Rfa, Ghirlandajo! I appreciate your trust. The puppy is now an Admin (final tally 58/7/2) Please let me know if there is anything I can ever do to assist you. KillerChihuahua^?!? 18:07, 14 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Talk:Skomorokh

I've responded there. JesseW, the juggling janitor 19:18, 14 January 2006 (UTC)

Trubetsky/Trubchevsky/Troubetzkoy/Trubecki ?

Shouldn't the members of this family use one name? Or is there some problem with redirects and they are in fact two or three families I am confusing? And yes, I agree that Trubecki is definetly the polonization which should not be used here. Also, I wonder if they really are Polish nobility. I am sorting this category and some of it's members have really more connection with Russia then Poland - see Wikipedia_talk:Polish_Wikipedians'_notice_board#Timespan_for_Category:Polish_nobility.--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus ^Talk 00:16, 15 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Copied to Talk:Trubetskoy as well your reply, from my talk page let's hope we can fix this mess after all.--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus ^Talk 19:05, 16 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

JBFvE

Hi Ghirlandajo,

The almananch is fine, it's not "my" article - just a quick page I wrote one evening to fill a red link, I do think some better references would be helpful though, I just used the few links I listed.

JBvE is good too, but a lot more to add - don't you think?. Schönbrunn Palace should be mentioned in far more architectural detail, sort of "Main article at [[Schonbrunn Palace]" then give on the page a detailed architectural appraisal of what FvE did which is not in the main article and very relevant to the architect. Remember this is the one building most people know and can picture.

*"...was probably the most influential Austrian architect of the Baroque period." - probably" won't do at all - he either was or he was not. If he was, then say so and footnote it to a reference.

*"....more pleasing and less demanding designs of his rival Johann Lucas von Hildebrandt proved more popular with the young monarch and his court" presents an opportunity for a critique of FvE's work - what was different about the new style etc?

*"...as articulated in A Plan of Civil and Historical Architecture (1721), one of the first and most popular comparative studies of world architecture" - needs to be explained as it will explain what the man was about.

Having said that, at the moment the page is a very good good standard Wikipedia article - with a little more work you could sget it to FA standard.what made FvE's architecture different and new. He's not my favourite architect so I'm probably not the right man to ask - he's too repetitive, he could have done a lot more with Baroque than he did (IMO). If I have any further thoughts I'll leave them here, I don't like writing thoughts on a talk page, as they stay with the article long after they have ceased to be pertinent. Keep up the good work. Regards Giano | talk 11:00, 15 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Posting response here...

...rather than at WP talk:RFA because it needs to be wrapped up there. I've come across this in other contentious discussions and the decision made by the admin has been the same: just because someone has built up experience on another Wikipedia project (say Russian Wikipedia), that doesn't necessarily give them a voting right on another Wikipedia project (say English Wikipedia). It's up to the closing admin or bureaucrat at the end of the day, the basic reasoning is that as the policies of each project are largely developed by the user base, they are going to differ between the projects. Therefore users of other language projects should not be able to make decisions that affect the policies and outcomes of projects they are not involved in. This is handled in the same way as sockpuppetry: the fact that the respective users are not regular contributors to English Wikipedia illustrates that they were told about the nomination and asked to cast a vote: this is defined as meatpuppetry and is frowned upon in decision making at the English Wikipedia. I can assure you that from long experience of closing discussions it doesn't matter who points out that a comment is from a suspected sockpuppet, I always check out the facts myself because as you rightly point out, the contributions of Bonaparte have raised some concerns elsewhere in this project. Thank you for remaining civil, and I hope this helps to clear up some of your misgivings. Feel free to leave a message on my talk page if you still have questions. -- Francs 2000 18:55, 16 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Pyotr

See Talk:Peter (name)#Pyotr. What's the difference between Piotr and Pyotr and should all Pyotrs be renamed to Piotrs?--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus ^Talk 19:12, 16 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

DYK

Did you know? has been updated. A fact from the articles Egyptian Bridge, Bank Bridge, Bridge of Four Lions 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.

Molobo

It shows that he has reverted anonymously but not that he evades the 3RR there. If of course he is now found guilty of being the anon on Germanisation, he has reverted eight times (3 times the anon, five times Molobo) and engages with the anon also in his Anti-Polonism-article crusade. I'm only surprised that in spite of the fact that I told him he was above the revert margin, he has continued early in the morning. I'd never thought he would be so eager to inject the silly generalisation of discrimination towards Polish soccer players. Anyway, thanks for telling me. Sciurinæ 11:51, 17 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

About Image:Slavs.jpg

Hi again. The people on Commons seems to be on top of things at theyr end. As for the local version I have left some questions on the uploaders talk page for now. The image doesn't rely seem to meet any of our critereas for fair use at the moment, so unless some issues are adressed it should most likely be removed and deleted. However I figured I should at least explain why the image is problematic before taking any "drastic" step. It does have a source after all, even if it's not usefull in letting us know anyting about the image (wich is unfortunately the case with a lot of images). Wish we had some place dedicated to dealing with disputed fair use claims, right now the alternatives seem to be listing it as a copyvio or talking to the uploader, so I'll try the later first. --Sherool (talk) 14:41, 17 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I've been campaigning for its deletion for a fortnight now, but people seem to be keener on deleting low-resolution images rather than blatant copyvios. --Ghirla | talk 07:13, 18 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Leonid Krasin

Thanks for the heads up! Krasin (or "Krassin" as his name was often spelled in Europe) was a very capable man, one of the most capable ones among Russian Social Democrats. He wasn't particularly happy about the Bolsheviks' move to the Left in 1917, but reluctantly worked with them in 1918-1920 until his views were seemingly vindicated in 1921. I'll see if I can expand the article at some point, although I am mostly on hiatus at the moment. Ahasuerus 15:55, 17 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Dniester fort.jpg

I have just noticed that this image, uploaded by you, has been deleted. Apparently it had no image tag, but you wrote it was fairuse. Personally I'd not have deleted it but would just correct the tag, but now it's gone - do you think you can reupload it with a correct tag and source? Note that images cannot be undeleted.--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus ^Talk 22:01, 17 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

To tell you the truth, I'm not particularly interested in Khotyn after so many wars that shook that article. I'd let the Romanian and Ukrainian editors illustrate it. --Ghirla | talk 07:16, 18 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I am afraid the articles will loose if their editing is left to such a restricted pool. --Irpen 17:46, 18 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Re:Your message for Tt1

If you provide below the English text of your last message, I could fix the Russian translation for you. --Ghirla | talk 15:40, 18 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Спасибо, я представляю мой русский довольно плох. Я не говорю русского, я использую электронные услуги по переводу. Она вероятно принимают леты для того чтобы выучить русского... лично, я выучил португалки в немного месяцев... я хочет выучить франчуза, но кажется довольно трудно. Вы для предложения. Я представляю что это сообщение написано плох также. ε γκυκλοπαίδεια* 19:43, 18 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Bulgakov

I had heard that story about the stone from Gogol's tomb - do you have source for it? It is wonderfully appropriate. Vsego dobrogo - Smerus 19:48, 18 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

DYK

Did you know? has been updated. A fact from the article Johann Bernhard Fischer von Erlach, 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.

Semi-bot edits

Who says you have to check them? They're marked as minor. But fine, I'll try to improve about that. Everyking 11:23, 19 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

DYK

Did you know? has been updated. A fact from the article Gostiny Dvor, 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 10:56, 20 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Muscovites

I added the places of birth mentioned in their articles in the German Wikipedia and cross-referenced it with online geneologies that mention place of birth. What do you mean "spamming"? I am not advertising websites as far as I know. User:Dimadick

Please provide valid historic sources for your claims. German Wikipedia is not a 16th century source for us to believe that Mikhail Feodorovich was really born in Moscow. As best I know, noone knows where he was born. --Ghirla | talk 11:18, 20 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Uh i dont get it?

First i know the holocaust happened and i know that all soviet women between 15-25 were either sent to brohels or cocnetration camps or work camps or used in medical experiments by the germans

All soviet women 25+ were either sent to brohels or cocnetration camps or work camps or used in medical experiments

All Soviet men 15+ were either killed on the spot sent to concentration camps, work camps or used in medical experiments

And all children were either sent to concentration camps, work camps, used in medical experiments or used to clear mine fields when the germans would march them off in direction of mine fields

But that said when the War shifted to german grounds then yes The german women left were raped by the soviets

Deng 01-20-06 13.30 CET

DYK

Did you know? has been updated. A fact from the article Aleksey Shakhmatov, 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 18:03, 20 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Kievan Rus map

You asked me do I have a map of the Kievan Rus. Since I saw that you already uploaded a new version of this map, I assume that you do not need new map any more, right? PANONIAN (talk) 02:18, 21 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Giacomo Quarenghi

I made a start, but this needs your touch. --Wetman 02:50, 21 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Done. --Ghirla | talk 08:21, 23 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Nevsky Prospekt versus Nevsky Prospect

Hi Ghirlandajo! I just noticed that you recently did a recirect from Nevsky Prospekt to Nevsky Prospect, although most links go to Prospekt and you have commented in "Prospect" that it should be with a "k" in English, except perhaps for the English title of Gogol's book, which unfortunately is what it is. As the article is your baby, I would suggest that you do a move of it to "Prospekt" and then do a redirect from "Prospect" instead. What do you think? Best regards. Thomas Blomberg 05:26, 21 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Answered on User_talk:Thomas Blomberg. --Ghirla | talk 10:52, 23 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Andrey! Yes, good idea to move it to the Talk page. Regards Thomas Blomberg 12:47, 23 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Is expansion of the Did You Know project possible?

Hi. I noticed you are somewhat active in the Did You Know template project. I couldn't find a discussion page for that template, as it looked like the default talk page was being used for operations. So I hope you don't mind me contacting you directly...

One of the concepts being explored at the Main Page Redesign Project is expanding coverage for both the Picture of the Day (POTD) and Did You Know (DYK) to seven days per week. One of the Main Page Redesigns we have produced already has support for displaying both of these features separately. POTD is already produced 7 days per week, and so is being displayed in that Redesign every day. Note that users may start adopting the Redesigns for use on their user pages, even if they don't become the new Main Page. DYK is currently only produced 5 days per week, and so its display remains static on weekends.

We have just started a new round of voting, and of course I'm championing the version with the most upgrades, including DYK.

The reason I am contacting you is that this version has unexpectedly taken an early lead in the race, and so it is possible that it could be adopted as the new main page. I thought I better start looking into what needs to be done to get it fully supported in case it does win, and heck maybe even boost its chances during the voting session (which lasts until the end of the week), by improving its features.

I was wondering if the DYK team would be interested in and up to the task of keeping the DYK project active on weekends? Perhaps even this weekend? The main question is would you like the Main Page to support your feature 7 days per week?

I invite you to become familiar with our project. Come take a look at what we've accomplished so far, and feel free to join in on the fun.

Sincerely,
--Go for it! 11:39, 21 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I believe these concerns should be addressed to User:Gurubrahma and User:Petaholmes who actually update the template. --Ghirla | talk 12:30, 23 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

User:Linuxbeak/RFA Reform

Hi Ghirlaandajo,

Along the lines of that discussion, I saw you chime in about:

I'm with Alex Bakharev here. Being currently on RfA nomination myself, and having followed that of Ramallite (and a few others), I really get the impression that anyone who has a long history editing "controversial" topics, no matter how impeccable their behavior, has received a "kiss of death" for promotion. Well, that's an exaggeration: Ramallite squeaked by, and I might too. But generally, you can't try to promote NPOV on politicized topics without gaining "enemies" among those who want articles to push a particular and strident political POV. Lulu of the Lotus-Eaters 21:20, 19 January 2006 (UTC)

Absolutely agree with Lulu. --Ghirla | talk 16:29, 20 January 2006 (UTC)

So, OK, this is crass campaigning :-), but any chance you might want to mosey over to Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Lulu of the Lotus-Eaters and nudge me in the right direction? It seems like a (personally) painful example of exactly this matter of "don't edit the controversial stuff if you want to pass RfA". Attempts to carry out some unrelated political discussion there (at least refactored into the comment section by another editor). Lulu of the Lotus-Eaters 17:29, 21 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Revert Warrior

Αндрей, you wrote to Chihuahua that I add Polish spellings into articles on every Eastern European locality. Are we exaggerating a bit or what? I add Polish names to significant East Prussian cities, I added Belarusian spelling to Smolensk a couple of times and Polish spelling to Kiyev, but that's about it. Space Cadet 00:43, 22 January 2006 (UTC) P.S. Kaliningrad is in Central not Eastern Europe.[reply]

Rydel

Mate, the troll Rydel is still loose, infesting Wikipedia with his POV. Someone has to stop him. Take a look at Vorsha. --Kuban kazak 15:12, 22 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

History of the Soviet Union

Can you please take a look at this edit. This person has made some suspicious contributions. Thanks, Tintin Talk 16:22, 22 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Lidia matisse.jpg

The license tag on this picture is incorrect. The tag says that the picture is in the public domain because it was published in the U.S. before 1923. This is, of course, impossible if the painting was made in 1947. I note that this image tag is being debated for deletion and has been rewritten - I don't know what it said when you used it on this page. This may affect other images that you have uploaded also. Rmhermen 04:43, 23 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Answered on User_talk:Rmhermen --Ghirla | talk 11:51, 23 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Simonides

Yes. Simonides' edits are so bad that it is difficult for me to imagine that he or she is being serious. Will you be able to report him? I'm about to log off my computer; so I don't have time at the moment. By the way, you may want to quote Simonides' edits to the intro on the Administrators' noticeboard page. The admins are more likely to act fast if they realize exaxtly how obviously unencyclopedic and disruptive Simonides' edits have been. 172 13:04, 23 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Nevsky Prospe[ck]t

Hi, Ghirlandajo! May I ask you about your reasoning for choosing the "c"-version in the first place? Is the name of the Gogol's story the only reason, or is there more to it than that? While I myself think that the name should be either transliterated (with a "k") or translated, I'd like to hear from you first in case I'm missing something big picture-wise.—Ëzhiki (ërinacëus amurënsis) 15:13, 23 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Well, just like Thomas noted, the problem is that there is no single transliteration system that would use letter "c" to transliterate Russian "к", but what's more important is that while the English word "prospect" has many meanings, "avenue" is not one of them, which makes the title quite misleading. I'd say if you don't like how "prospekt" looks, then use either "Neva Avenue" or "Nevsky Avenue". I will double-check, but I don't think we have a policy/guidelines regarding street names, so you have some flexibility there.—Ëzhiki (ërinacëus amurënsis) 15:26, 23 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

question

On a policy discussion talk page I saw that you write "I've recently seen an admin with 2,000+ edits ousting from Wikipedian an editor with 50,000+." Is this so? It sounds very appalling. What are the particulars? I'm basically just curious. You don't have to answer if you don't want to. Herostratus 08:11, 24 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

RfA Thanks

Please accept my embarrassingly belated thank you for supporting my RfA, which much to my surprise passed 102/1/1, earning me minor notoriety. I am grateful for all the supportive comments, and have already started doing the things people wanted me to be able to do. And hopefully nothing else... Just zis Guy, you know? ^[T]/_[C]

AfD? 12:37, 24 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Palladian

'cos it's not an outdoor museum is it? Its a working real live city which has examples of Palladian architecture. This is an encyclopedia - so we can't use fanciful terms like "outdoor museum" that has to be saved for the local tourist guide book! Good luck with the Russian Palladianism - I don't know enough about it to write it, but I'll willingly help on style and terminology if you get stuck - give me a call. Regards Giano | talk 14:42, 24 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. We can't ignore the fact that St Petersburg *is* the outdoor museum. I don't recall other instances when the whole centre of such a sizable megapolis were inscribed on the World Heritage List. --Ghirla | talk 06:56, 25 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Your query

I doubt if there is a policy as such, but they would nevertheless qualify as new articles imo, as they are new to WP and they are similar to other articles in the respect that they can be actively updated by other editors unlike other encyclopedias in PD. btw, you may want to have a look at Wikipedia:Did_you_know#Selections for slightly related stuff; when the suggestions page is barren (as it is now), nothing much can be done apart from having DYK entries from stubs and "new" articles from PD resources. --Gurubrahma 16:38, 24 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

OK, I'll try to nominate a few new pages. --Ghirla | talk 16:40, 24 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks a ton, it is already 4 noms from you - a minor heads-up though; if an articles is started by a new user, can you check if it is a copyvio through google or msn search (the latters eems better for catching copyvios), so that undesirable articles do not get into DYK. We typically do a check for copyvio, but sometimes it slips our mind. I know that you don't like copyright paranoia ;), but still just hv a look if possible. TIA, --Gurubrahma 18:53, 24 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for head-ups but I do check the articles before nominating, especially if they are by an editor unknown to me. --Ghirla | talk 19:53, 24 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Dach

Progress being made, very nice. I was just comparing diffs when I got your message about reporing M for 3RR. Now, if SC would just hold off long enough, we might be able to get some real editing done, eh? Glad I was able to help at all.

Oh, and FYI, the real name of the place is Kaliningrad - Калининград (Russian, Swedish), Kalingrad (Polish), Kaļiņingrada (Latvian), Kalininhrad - Калінінград (Belarusian, Ukrainian), Karalaviec - Каралявец (former Belarusian), Kaliningrado (Spanish, Portuguese), Kalinjingrad (Croatian, Serbian), Kaljinjingrad - Каљињинград (Serbian), Karaliaučius (Lithuanian), Kenigsberg קעניגסבערג (Yiddish), Keunigsbarg (Low Saxon), Koningsbergen (Dutch), Königsberg (German), Konigsberga (Old Portuguese), Královec (Czech), Królewiec (former Polish), Kalinyingrád/Königsberg (Hungarian). KillerChihuahua^?!? 18:57, 24 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

In case it wasn't clear to you, the above (names) was meant as a joke. KillerChihuahua^?!? 19:57, 24 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Attitude

You have quite a negative attitude towards Romanian users I see, including Ronline, whoom I personally consider the most neutral and non-Romanian Romanian on Wikipedia. Your accusations of nationalism, nationalist trolls and other such anti-Romanian remarks should be more controlled. There is no place on Wikipedia for this kind of cheep xenophobia and next time I hear you make baseless accusations like that I am going to request an admin to block you. Constantzeanu 00:17, 25 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Please keep your nationalist hysterics on your own talk page. My opinion of Romanian editors in general and of you in particular is deservedly low. If you continue trolling on my talk page and intimidating superior editors, you will be reported. Take care, --Ghirla | talk 07:00, 25 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You? "Superior editor"? - haha don't make me laugh, we are not in the Soviet army here. Ghirla I am only going to say this once : learn how to behave. If you would carefully read what I wrote to you above, it is not nationalist hysterics but a remark about your totally disrespectful, racist and offensive remarks. Your opinion of Romanian editors is low because of your deep-xenophobia and obvious anti-Romanian views and if you continue with this sort of attitude, I will bring this to an admin and even start a RfC against you. Having said that: I consider this case closed and I hope I will not clash with you in the future. Have a nice day. Constantzeanu 01:57, 30 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Map of Kievan Rus

Ok, I could draw map of the Kievan Rus. In fact I could draw two maps: one of the original Kievan Rus territory, and the second one showing its greatest extent. Now, please see this map:

http://en.wiki.x.io/wiki/Image:Russia_0900.gif

It is from my personal collection. I did not draw it, but I want to draw new maps based on this one. I just want to ask you is this one ok as a model? PANONIAN (talk) 05:14, 25 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

All right, then I will draw new maps based on that one. However, you will have to wait several days until I finish it since I am pretty busy right now. PANONIAN (talk) 18:27, 25 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Девятаев и Zilant

Привет! Меня волнует правильность написания имени Михаила Девятаева в соответствующесй статье. Там он записан как Devjataev, а наверное лучше будет написать Devyatayev.

И другой вопрос. Я немножко добавил в статью про казанского дракона информации, в том числе и исторической. Можешь исправить ошибки (они там есть :) ? чесно говоря, мне бы хотелось выдвинуть зиланта в "статью дня". Как это можно сделать. Кстати, Зиланткон - это фестиваль именно фэнтези, а не фантастики вообще...

С уважением, --Untifler 17:48, 25 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Спасибо за помощь! Не более корректно ли будет перенести легенды о драконах в Булгаре в статью Зилант, т.к. есть варианты, связывающие легенду о перелетевшем змее с Зилнатом, что мол он и есть ондо и то же существо. Чувашская мифология этого как раз не признает, особенно того факта что змей обратился к ЯАллаху, и т.д.... --Untifler 18:05, 27 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Battle of Molodi

Привет, Ghirla! Недавно обнаружил информацию о Битве при Молодях (Молодинская битва), в которой 60.000 русских под Москвой победили 120.000 крымчаков и турок хана Дивлет-Гирея в 1572 и тем самым спасли Россию. Все источники называют одни и те же цифры, одни и тот же ход битвы. Вероятно, битва впала в забытость из-за личной распри Ивана Грозного с воеводой Михаилом Воротынским, руководившим победой. Но самом же деле эта битва была одной из ключевых в российской истории.

Очень печально, что об этой битве так мало известно, хотя её значение было гигантским, пожалуй не меньшим, чем поражение турок под Веной. В Википедии о ней и подавно ничего нет. Может быть ты смог бы написать о ней статью - у тебя хороший английский стиль и умение наводить справки. Очень необходима популяризация этой битвы. Я постараюсь по мере сил помочь. Voyevoda 03:15, 26 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the Battle of Molodi article! This alone is a barnstar worth but I have been accused by many of being biased to your edits so I will leave it to others to award it. I hope you understand. And check your email too! --Irpen 03:33, 28 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hi there!

Hi there, Andrey! It is good to be back, finally. Even though I'm still unemployed and everything, but I got myself a decent computer and ADSL from Stream. I don't think I'll be able to contribute a lot at this point due to the fact that I have to look for a job, get ready for my own wedding in a week and a half, and convince my fiancee that Wikipedia won't really interfere with my job search in any way :). I'll be doing minor articles, at least for now. Keep up the good work and I'll see you online! KNewman 12:17, 26 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Polish-German non-aggression pact

Well, the pact is not even half as interesting as the Nazi-Soviet alliance of 1939, mostly because:

Poland and Germany in fact bordered each other
both Poland and Germany had similar pacts with all of their neighbours
neither Poland nor Germany attached any secret protocols to the pact nor agreed to violate the rights of any other states (not to mention partitioning any spheres of influence)
It was a standard international treaty, contrary to the Ribbentrop-Molotov treaty which was somehow special.

Of course, if you feel the need to write a series of articles on all international treaties in Europe between 1000 BC and 2005, then feel free. Halibu tt 16:05, 26 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your reply. It just confirms my opinion that your coverage of Polish history is POVishly selective. --Ghirla | talk 16:06, 26 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Care to elaborate? Similarly I could ask you why didn't you write an article on the Soviet-Tuvan border treaty or the Soviet-Turkish non-aggression pact... Halibu tt 16:13, 26 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Re: Ad hominems

I am not a sockpuppet, sorry. I can prove that a hundred times. Check the facts before resorting to ad hominems. Anna Planeta 20:46, 26 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

old price riots

thanks mate ... i've fixed it up now. you're right :) i just couldn't think of a better way to introduce it. oh well...XYaAsehShalomX 21:07, 26 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

AndriyK RfAr closed

The AndriyK RfAr has been closed. Until by consensus he has agreed to a suitable and mutually agreed naming convention using the guideline Wikipedia:Naming conflict, AndriyK is prohibited from moving pages, or changing the content of articles which relate to Ukrainian names, especially those of historical interest. AndriyK is banned for one month from Wikipedia for creating irreversible page moves. Andrew Alexander, AndriyK, and MaryMaidan are warned to avoid copyright violations and to cooperate with the efforts of others to remove copyright violations. Ghirlandajo is warned to avoid incivility or personal attacks.

On behalf of the Arbitration Committee, Kelly Martin (talk) 04:53, 27 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

AN/I

Hi, a Malaysian anon has posted an incoherent rant about you at WP:AN/I. I' m telling you in case you want to answer. Latinus 19:08, 27 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, you noticed - I needn't have posted this then. Who is Bonaparte by the way, and why is he banned? Latinus 19:15, 27 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

He is a Romanian ultranationalist who has spawned a sock farm, using a variety of international IPs to post the whole content of my ancient RfC interspersed with his own incoherent comments, first as himself (on Bogdanguisca's RfA, AndriyK RfAr), then using socks (about dozen times on this page). You should check the WP:ANI archives for the context. --Ghirla | talk 19:22, 27 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Tell me, who does this remind you of: Special:Contributions/125.240.1.131. A Korean IP - hmmm. Latinus 23:00, 29 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Your edits to Mikka's talk page

Ghirla, please refrain from saying those things about me. I will start an RfC next time you say something like that. You can feel free to make any comments to anyone, but saying things like "Please don't discuss anything with him" and likening me to a troll is not OK. Ronline ✉ 01:04, 28 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

A third Romanian striving to intimidate me on this page in as many days. I guess one response above is enough. --Ghirla | talk 01:13, 28 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This is not about intimidation, it's about trying to get you to be more polite to other users. Remember, WP:AGF. Everytime I'm mentioned somewhere in a case relating to Mikka, Bonaparte or even neutral ones, you come along and give a biased account of how I'm like a troll, or how I'm naive, or how I've misapplied judgement, etc. Yet you've never proved any of those things, and you refuse to engage in constructive dialogue about it. So I suggest it would be good if you stop doing those things.

Ronline ✉ 01:18, 28 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Please read carefully what I say. I don't call you naive or troll. I just think it cheap to preach the importance of sticking to blocking policy after you disregarded it yourself. OK, let's close this issue. I hope the lessons have been learned. Another thing that annoys me is your unswerving support of Bonny who (as I have some reasons to believe) have already vandalized this page twice today. And sorry, your own conversation on this page rings a bell to me. Cheers, Ghirla | talk 01:51, 28 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know why you keep on claiming I was disregarding blocking policy, but whatever. I was simply asking Mikka for a reason why he blocked that anon because I thought the block was quite harsh and quick. I'm not here to try and incriminate anyone, or to collect information for ulterior motives, I just asked because I wanted a good-faith explanation. And I really didn't like the way how you were always saying bad stuff about me. You never saw me doing the same (i.e. telling others "stay away from Ghirlandajo" or "don't talk to him because look what he's done" or whatever). As to Bonaparte, I'm supporting him because I think that he does have an element of good faith and that the dispute resolution system didn't adequately try to get him to correct his ways. Instead, only punitive measures and warnings were taken, which led him further down the trail of problems, sort of like a vicious cycle. No RfC was made against him, and very little constructive dialogue occurred. That's why I think he should be given a second chance. As to the link you gave me to Anittas' RfC, I was the one to start the RfC, so I don't know how that quote links in ;) I hadn't even read that statement of Bonaparte's before now. But anyway, I agree we should close this whole dispute. Thanks,

Ronline ✉ 06:11, 28 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Replies

Sorry for my late replies. I haven't had time to look at the Russian famine of 1921 edits yet, since I still have my hands full with Andrew Alexander on Holodomor. I'm planning on taking him to arbitration. When I'm done dealing with the case, I'll try to look at the 1921 famine article. Regarding comparing this with this, I don't see the connection. Their politics seem totally different. (Are you sure you gave me the links to the right user histories?) Best regards, 172 | Talk 08:01, 28 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Garden Ring picture

Hi there, Andrey! I have a question about the Garden Ring picture you uploaded a few months back. I believe that if we look at the Ministry of Foreign Affairs building from this angle (see picture in the article), we're standing on Kutuzovsky Prospekt (near Kiyevsky Vokzal) and not on the Garden Ring. Garden Ring is located right in front of the MID building. Wouldn't it be more accurate to suggest that the picture shows the beginning of the Kutuzovsky Prospekt? What do you think? Maybe we should upload a different picture (I'm no good with uploading stuff, sorry :))? KNewman 14:07, 28 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Architecture

Neither egyptian architecture or sumerian architecture are related to western architecture. Persian and Sassanid architecture had a definitive influence over some of the western architectural styles. 12:09, 29 January 2006 (UTC)

Fair use and userpages

Hi, acording to this automated count 24 of the many fine images on display at your userpage are fair use images. Please take the time to weed these out at the earliest possible conveninece so that only truly free licensed images are on display there. The reason beeing that fair use images are not allowed on userpages per Wikipedia fair use policy. Thanks. --Sherool (talk) 21:25, 28 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Images

Andrey, you chose to remove an image I had uploaded with the justification Wikipedia is not image gallery; removed excessive image to Saint Sophia Cathedral in Kiev. I should be grateful for an explanation. There is no rule of Wikipedia which states that 'it is not a picture gallery', neither is there any guideline on excessive imagery. The image I uploaded, which was a photo I had taken myself, was directly relevant to the article, being the contemporary sarcophagus of the subject of the aricle, Yaroslav the Wise, not otherwise available in Wikipedia. I don't think you yourself would support the right of any one individual to determine whether an article is 'excessively ilustrated' (however that might be defined); indeed, if the removal of images is to be the matter of any one editor's discretion, you might find at risk many of the very fine images you yourself have created for Wikipedia. Your thoughts would be of interest. Vsyego dobrogo --Smerus 16:37, 29 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Answered on User_talk:Smerus --Ghirla | talk 18:05, 30 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your explaanation. I will not take strong issue with it other than to remark that your criteria could be described as highly subjective! Btw, for your interest and in case DVDs of it have not yet reached Yaroslavl, there is quite a good UK film just released on some themes of 'Tristram Shandy' - 'A Cock and Bull Story' starring Steve Coogan. Poka, --Smerus 22:10, 30 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

DYK

Did you know? has been updated. A fact from the article Alexander Buturlin, 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.

Did you know? has been updated. A fact from the article Ivan Gudovich, 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.

en icon

Language icons are apparently in a process of change, png's were a bit of a waste when you can use plain text. Anyway, I noticed the problem you mentioned in Verkhovna Rada building, it should be fixed now. --Orzetto 12:27, 30 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Katyn

Ghirlandajo, please (pretty, pretty please) stop what you're doing. Contrary to what you believe, the incident is primarily known for the murder of 20,000+ Poles, not for some alleged Russophobia. And, contrary to what you believe, people usually blame Soviet Union for it, not Russia. In case you hadn't noticed, the two states were quite different, apart from all the obvious similarities. Halibu tt 16:00, 30 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

As your latest opus on Soviet-Polish non-aggression pact clearly shows, you still regard Wikipedia as a propaganda machine. Although your strategy of obstinately propagating your nationalist mythology may succeed in a short term, I hope that the wikiprocess will bring some of the nationalist rant to normalcy sooner or later. --Ghirla | talk 09:01, 31 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

And what does it have to do with what I wrote? Halibu tt 11:19, 2 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

List of common Indo-European roots

What do you mean with "please don't litter the list with uninformative or repetitive entries"? If the words appear to be wrong, tell me. If you, by "repetetive entries" mean words that are cognates, such as eat, edo, essen we have many examples on that page already. I cannot at all understand "uninformative", do you mean "uninformed". All of the words are uninformative in the sense that it isn't explicitly explained what they mean. Also take the discussion on the talk page there, if you don't like the evolution the page is taking. Your edits on the page seems to be rather random. 惑乱分からん 21:29, 30 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

When I initiated and wrote the page you talk about, I envisioned it not as a storage for cognates randomly taken from every IE language that has been recorded. I asked on the talk page to add only one, most representative cognate from each language family. Therefore, you repetitive addition of "oko", an entry identical to the existing one and taken from two closely related Slavic languages, seems redundant to me. Such random additions don't add anything valuable to the list but destroy the system that underlay it. --Ghirla | talk 21:41, 30 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

OK, thanks for telling me. Since you created the page, we, (Imperial78, me et al.) have started a reworking on the page, creating a table showing representative words from most major languages. We have done that for more than a month, now, but it's looking good, and if you want to revert it, go and start a discussion on the entry talk page. I think the table is easier to follow than the original list, and Imperial78 has gone through a lot of the entries, fixing errors etc. so I'd like it that you only revert incorrect examples such as false cognates and borrowings in the future. 惑乱分からん 22:06, 30 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

DYK

Did you know? has been updated. A fact from the article Mikhail Gerasimov, 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.

Polish nationalist editing

I agree with you about the Polish nationalism problem. On the one hand, we clearly have gotten a tremendous amount of content from these editors, much of it very good, but unfortunately there is a general POV slant to it all, and the Katyn article looks like an extreme example (perhaps it just stands out more because it deals with a notorious point of 20th century history). The only effective strategy would be to tenaciously edit the articles and vociferously object when they get nominated for FAC, though. If just a couple more people would object to the Katyn FAC, the nom could definitely fail. Everyking 08:57, 31 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Zbigniew Brzezinski

Please, before you make some allegation that something is widely known,could you at least check the relevant Wikipedia article? For example, your claim that Zbigniew Brzezinski is best known as a russophobe does not find any support in the Wikipedia article about him. Balcer 18:27, 31 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Belarusian Language

You might find this rather humourous. Sorry but who does this person think he is? The god of Belarus? --Kuban kazak 18:56, 31 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Mira, Brother

Ghirlandajo, obviously my past comments have offended you deeply. For this I sincerely apologize. I truly respect your fine work and contributions. Despite the differences between us in terms of geography, age and politics, I think we share many common interests and beliefs. Including military history and the fair use of images (US Copyright laws are perhaps the most idiotic in the world, don't you agree?). So please accept this offer of peace and friendship, along with my apologies. Best regards and respects, --R.D.H. (Ghost In The Machine) 09:56, 1 February 2006 (UTC) Or "Ghost" to his friends...and if we cannot be friends then at least let us not be enemies any longer.[reply]

DYK

Did you know? has been updated. A fact from the article Russo-Turkish War, 1828-1829, 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.

Saint Petersburg vandalism

At first glance it looks like the "sneaky vandalism" you reverted may have been good faith (though error-prone, clumsy and uncited). Is there something I'm missing? Is there something that was reverted that is worth merging? --Dystopos 17:21, 1 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Answered on User_talk:Dystopos. --Ghirla | talk 19:02, 1 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I see what you're talking about now. Thanks for the quick answer. --Dystopos 19:14, 1 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Good faith?

Piotrus, such edits are unacceptable. I hope you are aware of WP:RV which reads: Rollbacks should be used with caution and restraint. Reverting a good-faith edit may send the message that "I think your edit was no better than vandalism and doesn't deserve even the courtesy of an explanatory edit summary." It is a slap in the face to a good-faith editor; do not abuse it. If you use the rollback feature other than against vandalism or for reverting yourself, be sure to explain on the talk page of the user whose edit(s) you reverted. I await your apologies. --Ghirla | talk 14:30, 1 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Sure, I'd apologise IF your edit were carried out in good faith. Halibutt and Balcer has stated their case strongly enough on the talk page, I see no reason why I should repeat their arguments.--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus ^Talk 18:05, 1 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

No apologies? OK, I may live with it. --Ghirla | talk 18:09, 1 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

If you want an apology, just look up a few sections ;> Cheers--R.D.H. (Ghost In The Machine) 05:59, 2 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks

Hi, thanks for fixing the links in the Nefteyugansk article. I read the names off the Nefteyugansk website, and wondered why they turned up as redlinks when I linked them up. (I know very little about the city myself, but when I made the article, I was wondering why a Russian city of over 100,000 people and a main centre of production for Yukos was a redlink.) Sjakkalle (Check!) 07:29, 2 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Palazzo Te

Dear Ghirlandajo, I see you're a very expert editor of Wikipedia. IMHO, I don't seem my edit of Palazzo Te being incoherent. I edited the article to shape it according to the Wikipedia standard. For example, do you really think to begin with "To a layman in architecture... etc" is a good start for an encyclopedia article? Therefore I put it back to what it was according to my edit. My idea is that you can add things that you think I've removed starting from the Wikipedia standard base I rewrote. Let me know. Thanks and good work! Attilios.

Hi Ghirla - it does not seem that you need my third oppinion someone has already provided that. I have to say I think I prefer the original, but perhaps the "to a layman" is a little nonencyclopedic - I'm not sure. I'll take a look later and perhaps tweak it a bit, but I do thinh Attilos perhaps removed too much information. Regards Giano | talk 16:36, 2 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

No problems, your reversion was actually a back handed compliment!!!. I'll have a look at "The Passage" now. I see we are both featuring at Ghost's FRA. Interesting? Giano | talk 17:25, 2 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

None of my business, and don't think I'm trying to influence you - but if you feel like that why have you voted to support him? You don't have to tell me - I'm just curious. I noted the desparaging comments about you from his friends, you don't have to take that here. This is not school! Giano | talk 17:48, 2 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

No sorry my mistake. On the list number 21. comes up with your name at the end of the line, so it lookslike your vote - perhaps your screen is different. Giano | talk 17:56, 2 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Indeed this is not school. Yet you think because Ghirlandajo accepted my apologies, that somehow makes him weak and subject to your manipulations Giano. At least Ghirlandajo has grown beyond the schoolyard, whereas you clearly, have not. For this reason I genuinely respect him--R.D.H. (Ghost In The Machine) 18:19, 2 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ghost, please remember that my talk is not a chat room. Can you move your dispute elsewhere? --Ghirla | talk 18:24, 2 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, I shall do so.--R.D.H. (Ghost In The Machine) 18:37, 2 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Pavlovsk

You know what? This exact same thing occured to me when I was about done with dab bypasses (finding no single reference to another Pavlovsk kind of rings some warning bells :)). While I would insist that "Pavlovsk, Saint Petersburg" is correct (were it to be left at that name), because the town is under jurisdiction of St. Petersburg, and jurisdiction is what's used for dabs, it's, of course, a moot point because I'll be moving it back now. A lesson for me is from now on to review all dab page backlinks to see their composition.—Ëzhiki (ërinacëus amurënsis) 17:54, 2 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Done.—Ëzhiki (ërinacëus amurënsis) 18:07, 2 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Trollstar

I recently made the acquaintance of User:Bonaparte in the form of 128.107.236.186 (talk · contribs). As he's obviously an obnoxious homophobic troll, take this hand-made trollstar (just a joke award) for coping with him so well. Latinus 18:30, 2 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The Passage

The Passage is good, but some of the language needs to be put into more readable modern English, I have a 1907 photograph, but it's very similar to one which is there. If you want me to edit the English just say - it's fine as it is, but just not very flowing. Incidentally some English books seem to spell it "The Passazh", perhaps there should be a redirect page too. Regards Giano | talk 22:34, 2 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, I've done a light copy edit at The Passage your English is fine, I'm not a native English speaker either, but I've spent enough time in England to know they phrase things slightly differently to the way "we foreigners" are taught in school! (I think they do it on purpose!) Revert it if you don't like it. - no problems Giano | talk 10:38, 3 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

[5] I've already changed back to "remains home" because that I am sure is correct English. Are you sure it should not be "shops" in the plural - was it mot a mall of many shops, or just one big store? I now know how to spell St. Petersburg! Regards Giano | talk 16:20, 3 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

AMA

Thanks for bringing that to my attention, but it is of little interest to me at this point. I was advocating on his behalf as a member of the Association of Member Advocates, so please don't attribute any alleged wrongful conduct to me. Thanks.Gator (talk) 22:02, 2 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Lydia Chukovskaya

It is funny, but I was thinking along the same lines. It is a good article that should be DYKed, but I don't know what fact to put. Let's put on the New Articles board and somebody (perhaps Ghirlandajo) would invent the question... Anyway, I nominated it to WP:DYK, please check my version of the question. abakharev 00:35, 3 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Kievan Rus

Hi. I finished these maps of the Kievan Rus:

I was not sure about northern border on the second map. Tell me if something should be corrected. PANONIAN (talk) 00:45, 3 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Blocking of anonymous IPs

Hi. I've blocked User:128.107.236.186 [6] and User:200.79.192.26 [7] for a period of 24 hours for highly-offensive edit summaries. However, I don't see the point of trying to always make a link to User:Bonaparte. In fact, I think sometimes it is quite amusing that everytime an anon makes a personal attack in relation to a Romanian article, he is immediately classed as being a sock of Bonaparte. There is no proof of that, and I really don't see the point of making that rash judgement. If we take things at face value, both of the IPs above have launched personal attacks, and they have therefore been blocked. It doesn't matter who they were. They don't affect my opinion of Bonaparte in the slightest, because as of yet I have no proof that they were affiliated with Bonaparte in any way. Thanks, Ronline ✉ 05:08, 3 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

DYK

Did you know? has been updated. A fact from the article Theodore Komisarjevsky, 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 06:11, 3 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Pagans In Recovery

it's a phrase, I would delete it as unnotable but it's not a speedy; either put it on AfD or ignore it :) dab (ᛏ) 12:01, 3 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Andrei Bely

Thanks for your help on Nabokov's Notes on Prosody. I'm no expert on Bely (but really enjoyed visiting his house museum on Arbat a couple of years ago). Do you know if the text of Опыт характеристики русского четырехстопного ямба is available on the net somewhere? I'd like to have a go at reading it, and maybe doing a Wikipedia article on it. — Stumps 22:14, 3 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the reply on Bely ... I'll also try to find Медный Всадник как диалектика ритма somewhere ... do you know if it and Символизм are still in print? As regarding English poets ... the three you list — Marvell, Hardy, Yeats — are amongst the best. It is hard to know who else to recommend because I don't know who you have already read and excluded from this list ... obvious additions might be Donne, Coleridge and Auden. Larkin was influenced by both Hardy and Yeats, but there's also something less appealing about him and his work. In terms of more recent poets, Hall, Hill and Hull are all worth looking at, as is Peter Porter. I'm happy to make more suggestions if you like.

I'm reading more Polish poetry than Russian at the moment, but there was a bilingual edition of Елена Шварц I enjoyed a few years ago, and I was also reading some Глеб Шульпяков; more recently Катя Капович, both the English and Russian poems. Do you have any recommendations? — Stumps 08:34, 8 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Brodsky, yes of course, wonderful ... even his English work is strangely fascinating from a technical point of view. I could also add Basil Bunting and his one-time student August Kleinzahler to the list of English-language poets to look at. I enjoy both Frost and Auden ... interestingly they possibly have a higher reputation in Russia than in England and America, perhaps because they stuck to traditional forms (playing tennis with the net as Frost would have it).

I don't think I can be much help with Zaum' .. the external links seem to be pretty good. Khlebnikov is completely beyond my grasp ... I find Chukovsky's rhymes for children sufficiently challenging from a language point of view! :) — Stumps 10:32, 9 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

RfA Thanks!

Okay, this is perhaps a bit overdue, but thank-you for your support in my recent RfA! I passed with a final ~~vote count~~ consensus of (82/1/0), which was a lot of support that I really appreciate. I'll try to live up to the expectations; and on that note, if there's ever something I do wrong (or don't do right), please spit in my general direction. Cheers! --P e ruvianLlama^(spit) 05:31, 4 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Nikolay Yakovlevich Danilevsky

My source refers to a Piotr Milyukov; are you sure that it means Pavel Milyukov?. (Incidentally, I wasn't sure why you removed the "Russian anthropologists" category from the article. The title of "Russia and Europe" should be in inverted commas not italics when it's introduced, as it wasn't a book but a journal article.) --Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 16:54, 4 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Piotr Milyukov did not exist. The great historian's name was Pavel. I nominated the article on WP:DYK, by the way. --Ghirla | talk 12:34, 6 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Invitation

You are cordially invited to the Grand Reopening of my Bumper Sticker Gallery User:Space Cadet/Bumper Stickers. If my great work inspires you to come up with your own ideas for a sticker, T-shirt, poster, symbol, sign, etc., please let me know and I'll be happy to try to do my best for you. I will only turn down anything racial, anti-semitic, fascist and so on. Yours Truly, Space Cadet 23:13, 5 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you!

I would like to thank you for your support for my candidacy for the Military history WikiProject coordinator position. I am now the Lead Coordinator, and I intend to do my best to continue improving the project. If you ever have any questions or concerns regarding my actions, or simply new ideas for the project, be sure to let me know! —Kirill Lok s hin 00:08, 6 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Corrected map

Check this map again:

http://en.wiki.x.io/wiki/Image:Kievska_rus02.png

I added Novgorod and also changed northern border, since looks more accurate like this. If something else should be changed, please say. PANONIAN (talk) 02:58, 6 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

DYK

Did you know? has been updated. A fact from the article Peredelkino, 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.

Did you know? has been updated. A fact from the article The Passage, 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.

The suggestion was on the longer side but I did not know what to prune ;) --Gurubrahma 11:02, 6 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ruthenian language

Hey, you seem the guy to put this problem to. I was wondering if you can help, as I'm a little concerned about the content of the Ruthenian language article. It seems awfully POV. There is, for instance, no mention that "Ruthenian" just means Russian (I have scores of Latin examples using the word in reference to all of the eastern slavs). While the characterization that divergence occurred between "Russian" and "Ukrainian-Belarusian" may be correct, I'm not at this stage very convinced that this was "Ruthenian" versus "Russian", rather than specific Eastern slavic dialects. I understand that the term is being employed to avoid the fact that the concept of "Russian" wasn't exclusive to the former Mongol lands until the modern era, but is the concept of "Ruthenian language" really a viable way to go about it? The content of the article runs contrary to scholarly text books in English that I've consulted, e.g. S.C. Rowell, who works at the University of Klaipėda, in his work Lithuania Ascending: A Pagan Empire within east-central Europe (1994) never uses the term. He uses the term "Rus'ian" for the Eastern Slavic language used in Lithuania, and uses it for all the dialects of the eastern Slavs. I'm just a little concerned wiki is being used to distort history in the interests of new nationalisms. I made a comment at Talk:Ruthenian_language. Regards, - Calgacus (ΚΑΛΓΑΚΟΣ) File:UW Logo-secondary.gif 23:29, 6 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

thanks

It's nice to see that you took even the slightest interest in the article I started, the Great Palace page. Thank you for taking an interest in it; it needs all the help it can get! :-) Ryan 05:25, 7 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Trow Ghyll skeleton

Do you know of any other mysterious unidentified remains of Nazi spies found since the war? This isn't just any old skeleton. I'd say it is notable based on the profession of the deceased. The Nazi spy at liberty for the longest period in the UK during the Second World War was Willem Ter Braak (five months), and it's possible that this one beat his record before his mysterious death. David | Talk 14:56, 7 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Russia Portal

Thanks for your message which I have noted and will act on. Toodle-pip --Smerus 15:08, 7 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Prince Dolgorukov

Hi, thanks for the watchlist message. Regarding the Prince Dolgorukov article, I agree that today he doesn't seem like anything other than a dead politician who had his moment in the sun 100 years ago.

To me, what makes him notable is that he WAS notable in the Russia of his time, and there are plenty of mentions of him in the London Times archives during the years 1905-1915, when he was an important figure in liberal/Cadet politics. The eventual manner of his death adds to his notability - it was well-covered in the British press at the time.

You can also see it this way. Most of the politicians of today who have an entry in Wikipedia will be dead and forgotten in 2105. (Every single US congressman has an entry!) Today, they are all notable and they all have articles, but they wouldn't be so notable a hundred years later.

Personally I am an inclusionist. If we were writing this Wikipedia in 1905, the Prince would definitely be in!

Thanks and regards. -- Peripatetic 17:34, 7 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Mikhail Lomonosov's monument

Goût Grec! If the monument was erected right after Lomonsov's death in 1765, it's an excellent example of the earliest phase of Neoclassicism, the Goût Grec of the late 1750s to c. 1770, in the most up-to-date Parisian style. Can you find any information? It's worth illustrating at Neoclassicism— unless it's a later monument in "Empire" taste. In 1765 Catherine herself was still satisfied with her French designers, not yet looking for Roman ones through count Rieffenstein.--Wetman 18:55, 7 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Shadow

Dear Halibutt, please behave yourself. When you call myself "your faithful shadow" you make a personal attack. If you accuse me of stalking, please read Wikipedia:Stalking, because stalking is a serious allegation that may lead to admin action. You should know by now that I am a WP:DYK regular and I check most announcements on that page to discover possible copyvios and stubs. Although your article about an obscure Warsaw park was created within hours after I had started Category:Parks in Russia and wrote Summer Garden I didn't accuse you of stalking, did I? Please avoid personal attacks in future. --Ghirla

No, Ghirlandajo, it was not my intention to accuse you of anything or, for Gods sake, to offend you. As could be seen in the past very seldom do I follow your (former) ways of offending everyone around by assuming their bad will or calling them names. I'm really astonished that after the RfC you apparently stopped such behaviour and I'm really grateful for that. I merely noticed that you follow every article I create as closely as if you were my shadow. Nothing more, nothing less. Also, I don't see why calling you faithful is considered an offence, but I'm sorry if your understanding of English made you feel that way. BTW, in case of future misunderstandings I reccomend checking the suspected terms in a dictionary, it would help us avoid many problems and grievances. Halibu tt 14:29, 8 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

No, Halibutt, it was not my intention to accuse you of anything or, for Gods sake, to offend you. As could be seen in the past very seldom do I follow your (former) ways of offending everyone around by assuming their bad will or calling them names. I'm really astonished that after the RfC you apparently stopped such behaviour and I'm really grateful for that. I merely noticed that you follow every article I create as closely as if you were my shadow. Nothing more, nothing less. Also, I don't see why posting a message on my talk page, open for everyone to see and comment, is labelled by you as conspiring but I'm sorry if your understanding of English made you feel that way. BTW, in case of future misunderstandings I reccomend checking the suspected terms in a dictionary, it would help us avoid many problems and grievances. --Ghirla | talk 16:38, 8 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Apparently you tried to change your ways from shadowing me to mirroring me :) If you have some problems with my past behaviour or feel that I offended anyone anywhere then please state that loudly and clearly. Otherwise just move along and don't bother me any more, would you? Thanks in advance. Halibu tt 16:42, 8 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

As I don't really hope to get apologies from you for veiled accusations of stalking and "conspiring", I prefer to move on and let you change your ways once again. --Ghirla | talk 16:48, 8 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

As I explained above (and already apologised), it was a misunderstanding and I had no intention to accuse you of stalking. I accused you once of offending others and lack of respect for other wikipedians and, since then, you changed your ways. Whatever you might think, I have no intention to fight with you as long as you stay civil. Also, read again what I wrote to Everyking about conspiring (not "conspiring", but "conspiring", there is a huge difference). If you believe that I should apologize to you every time I contact anyone, then I'm afraid I can't help you here. Halibu tt 17:28, 8 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

cultures

you are welcome; I just had a brief look, however, I didn't do fact-checking against anything printed :) dab (ᛏ) 09:48, 9 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Book of Veles

The article seems fine enough to me. It states quite clearly that the book is most likely a low-level forgery, and it even gives hints about possible history of a forgery. Perhaps it should be stated more clearly what complete idiocy are claims of those who insist on book's authencity about supposed existance of fully developed writting system amongst Slavs before Christianization.

I am more concerned about the new article of Veda Slovena, as "authentic source" as Book of Veles is. Unfortunately, I do not know enough of these particularities to interfere.

My work on main article of Slavic mythology is far from done. I am slowly making progress until I rewrite the whole article based on the scheme I proposed. Then I have to think about how to connect that with themes from Polish folklore which are being added at the bottom of the page. I am also somewhat affraid if the whole article will be too long, perhaps... -Hierophant 17:09, 9 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

That is almost always quoted by neopagans when they insist on the historicity of Book of Veles. Funny thing they never quote the entire passage. Chernoritzes clearly states ...prije Slaveni ne imahu pisma, nego kao pagani črtama i rezama gatahu..., which, translated literaly (the tranalation in the article on wikipeda is a very poor one, as I have seen) ...before the Slavs had no writting, but as pagans used lines and scratches for divination... This is a clear descrpition of some sort of runic script. If you have read Rybakov's studies of ancient Slavic calendar, you've perhaps seen photographies of 4th century Chernjakov culture pottery, which he identified as Slavic. Several of these have sort of a sytlised (let us call them runic) symbols which can be read quite well as calanedar (as Rybakov interperted them, probably quite corectly). This was not a writting system, merly a mnemotehnical aid. -Hierophant 17:39, 9 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Joan of Arc

Hi, would you take a few minutes to respond to my peer review request? Wikipedia:Peer review/Joan of Arc/archive2 Durova 03:29, 10 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Fair use images

Hi. Further to Sherool's note above, I notice that you still have fair use images on your user page. Please could you remove these? Thanks, CLW 12:33, 10 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I remove them by the by as I upload new PD images to replace them. Cheers. --Ghirla | talk 12:43, 10 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The Mirror (film)

Please give me twenty minutes more. I am in the middle of a complicated set of operations. I of course will take care of the incoming links. Pissant 14:44, 10 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Русский портал

Привет. Я не готов содействовать в «Русском Портале», ибо занят. Со своей стороны, приглашаю тебя в нашу русскую Википедию. Думаю, там моя помощь нужна больше. Ramir 15:16, 10 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Voskresenie

Hi Ghirlandajo, I've created this history/philosophy stub and I wondered if you'd be so kind as to take a look because I can't speak Russian. Researching this subject without any knowledge of Russian has proven to be a little too difficult. I'd like to find out as much info as possible, but I'm particularly interested to know when the group began and when it disbanded (if it has been disbanded?). I'd really appreciate your assistance!--Nicholas 15:12, 10 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for that Ghirlandajo, here's a little token of my appreciation:

.--Nicholas 18:20, 10 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

DYK

Did you know? has been updated. A fact from the article Summer Garden, 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 17:48, 10 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

DYK updation query

Hi, I don't think this was fair. We need to update the template more often, not to delete nominations like this. --Ghirla | talk 19:13, 10 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, from the diff. provided it becomes clear that 13 suggestions were removed by me, out of which, 5 made it to the template. That leaves 8 suggestions, out of which 3 were rejected by editors & admins some time before with their comments. That leaves 5 of which Chicago railroad fair was a list and there was a discussion recently about the inappropriateness of featuring lists when Pharos removed a suggestion from the template this week and I reverted it - you may want to check the history of the template and his talk page for further details. This leaves 4 suggestions, of which, Gardens of Sallust was a stub and without sources; Yuacare language was a stub with a lot of red links; Vyacheslav Ivanov was stubby and not very interesting. Our lady of Kazan was the only one that had some merit but most of its content was forked from a previous article. This was precisely the reason the updates were spaced out on thursday and friday. Please give us some credit ;) --Gurubrahma 12:22, 11 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

About Balts and Slavs

Your research is interesting but what is the new contribution to the fundamental study of Julius Pokorny - tolstaja choroshaja kniga - used by Starostin and Leiden university to form the ethymological e-data base? Secondly, the roots of Balts and Slavs (their old languages changed, may be, more rapid semms to be much more older than 2-3 thousand years. Describing Slavs and Balts at common origin near Dneper you loose thouthands of years. Try to make some chronologisation and try to find the oldest wards in Russian and Lithuanian. You'll see...The good introduction - books of Vladislav Illych-Svitych about the nostratic preindoeuropean layer of languages...

Vsego choroshego Ttturbo 19:36, 11 February 2006 (UTC) from Vilnius - I'm 50...[reply]

I am afraid I have no idea what you are talking about. Does it have something to do with my List of common Indo-European roots, for which Pokorny was the main source? Or perhaps with another of my articles, Vladislav Illich-Svitych, written more than a year ago? Please specify an article, or ideally a diff of an edit of mine you refer to. --Ghirla | talk 17:41, 13 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Football AID 12 February - 18 February

Thank you for participating in the Football AID vote this week.

FC Dynamo Kyiv has been selected as this week's collaboration. Please do help in working to improve it.

DYK

Did you know? has been updated. A fact from the article Vera Kholodnaya, 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 04:34, 13 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Robert Louis Stevenson

Thank you, I enjoyed reading the works as much as writing about them. I'm slowly reading through most of Stevenson (thanks to Project Gutenberg on a Sony Librie), then I'll read a biography or two (there are about 200 to choose from, a field of study in its own right), and then hope to write a good summary biography. That's my hope anyway. I've always believed Wikipedia shines on obscure topics, but on the big topics that have already been covered many times elsewhere, and many times better (George Washington for example, and Stevenson), Wikipedia will probably never be a great source, so I'm focusing my energies on the more obscure articles first. But your absolutely right, Stevenson was a great writer, one of my favorites, and its surprising there have not been more editors working on his biography and works. --Stbalbach 00:45, 14 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

DYK

Did you know? has been updated. A fact from the article Dmitry Milyutin, 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 04:55, 14 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

About an image for Vysokopetrovsky Monastery

I have a PD-self variant of the same image, but shot in bad wheather (about a week ago). Do you advise me to change your picture for mine? I don't know what's really better - a better fairuse image, or a worth PD. Arseni 15:25, 14 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

DYK

Did you know? has been updated. A fact from the article Iberian Gate and Chapel, 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 17:05, 14 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Sevastopol

Hi Ghirlandajo: You reverted my edits on Sevastopol twice back to user:Irpen edition. You did not provide any explanation for the reversals, which is kind of roughly.

With Irpen we were editing the article, adding the information about Sevastopol status after the WW2. In my last edition I clarified that (as it stated in Souz and Republican Constitutions) there were no cities of Souz subordinance, only of Republican subordinance. Also, Irpen added that Sevastopol is a military base, and to reflect this status, I added a reference to "closed city". I have no idea why you are reverting all of this.

Cathedral Square in Vilnius

Hi, I just wanted to say that you should be more careful when making edits. First of, you changed "the monument to Gediminas by Vytautas Kašuba, one of the first rulers of Lithuania" to "the monument to Gediminas by Vitovt, one of the first rulers of Lithuania." While I agree the structure of the first sentence was misleading, Vitovt was not the architect of the monument. Secondly, you added "but traditional for Imperial Russia" to the end of "One of the most distinctive features of the square is the Cathedral's bell tower, situated several yards from the cathedral itself, a thing uncommon outside of Italy". Well, good, but Vilnius Cathedral is Roman Catholic, and Imperial Russia is Eastern Orthodox. These two different religions have very different architectural taste so you cannot really compare them just like that. Or did you want to say something different?

I appreaciate your edits, but please be a little more careful! Renata 03:48, 16 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Firstly, the sentence was phrased so as to imply that the monument is dedicated to Vitautas, a Lithuanian ruler. It is the editor who added the sentence who should be more careful when making edits. Secondly, when the cathedral was constructed, Vilnius was part of the Russian Empire, so it's the Russian imperial traditions and not the Italian ones that should be taken into account. --Ghirla | talk 09:18, 16 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry

It was marked as a hoax, I took that at face value - which I probably shouldn't have done. I apologize, and recuse myself from further involvement in this particular controversy. Feel free to re-create it. DS 13:02, 16 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your response. --Ghirla | talk 13:10, 16 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Shukhov Tower picture

Regarding the picture you removed from the Shukhov Tower page. I added it after seeing it on the Vladimir Shukhov page with a caption indicating that it was Shukhov Tower. If it is not, you might want to remove it from that page (or correct the caption. Cheers. ―BenFrantzDale 13:10, 16 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

A new picture was added to the article by now. --Ghirla | talk 19:48, 17 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

All editors should log on

Hello,

I came across your comment/question about requiring all editors to log on. It appeared in the editing comments section of the "Jean de La Fontaine" article I did some minor editing in, and am now watching. I agree with you completely!!! I'm fairly new to Wikipedia, and am still learning some of its basics. My question is: how do I add my name to a particular list? In this case, the 'All Editors Should Log-on List'? Michael David 13:13, 17 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, I believe that quite ago I've seen a page where the proposal was discussed, but I can't find it now. You'd better ask User:Wetman, who seems to be concerned about the issue more than I am. --Ghirla | talk 19:50, 17 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks

Thank you for the kind words and the barnstar. I had noticed your manuscript articles and was quite pleased by them. I quite understand your frustration, it seems at times that I am the only one here working on Medieval art, or illuminated manuscripts. (Although it does has its advatages, since I don't really have to worry to much about edit wars and NPOV pushers and all of the frustations that plague some other editors.) Let me say that I was quite pleased to see your article on the Chludov Psalter. I did a presentation on it in an illuminated manuscript class I took in college, so it has always been in the back of my mind as one the articles that needs to be done. Thanks. Dsmdgold 03:32, 18 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

An enemy request for help :)

Do you have any ideea about "Hustânscaia chronicle" or about "Byhovec chronicle"? Wihich is the equivalent in english? I have no online source and is very hard for me to search russians sites.

THX again. I want to usesome information for XIV century. But are the names of the chronicles are spelled right?, I was tried to querry google in i've found only some modavian sites mentioning them. Any russian site mention them? THX in advance.CristianChirita

Alex Bakharev' Nomination

May I kindly suggest that you revisit your opinion on the nomination Wikipedia:Requests_for_adminship/Alex_Bakharev_2? Sashazlv 08:13, 19 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hrabar the Monk

Greetings! Where did you find information that Hrabrar the Monk is the name that's most used in English? A brief Google search revealed to me that this name is practically only found in Wikipedia, whereas Chernorizets Hrabar and its variations are the more popular one overall. You shouldn't attempt to coin in new terms, but rather conform to the ones that are most popular. → Тодор Божинов / Todor Bozhinov → 19:44, 19 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Anon Vandal in action

84.22.47.114, @ Belarusian Byzantine Catholic Church, keep an eye on that article. --Kuban Cossack 22:22, 19 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Kazak, I believe you should cool off a bit. The subject is not worth your energy. --Ghirla | talk 12:02, 20 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Nevertheless mate, here is an example of how Catholic POV-pushers are trying to a) discredit sourced material, b) remove referenced facts c) present history as if Unia was the best thing for Belarusians, an Orthodox people. I would appreciate some support.--Kuban Cossack 12:57, 20 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Answer

I came back temporarily in order to help establishing the Wikipedia:Baltic States notice board so that there could be more cooperation in the creation of articles related to Baltic States. I will most likely go away again later. As for reverting, reverts makes a smaller percentage of my edits than your edits (I am not saying that you haven't written good articles of course, I know you did). And, of course, I know how to use the talk page - you, however, first edited and only then explained the edit at the talk page, by the time i reverted there was no explaination yet. Anyways, good luck. DeirYassin 15:37, 20 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Alex Bakharev's RfA

Which doubts? Can you provide a single meaningful diff? Although I also voted neutral, your rationale struck me as weird and totally unapplicable to Alex.

perhaps you would care to reread the first request, Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Alex Bakharev, where you will find detailed a differential wherein Alex calls an admin stupid, and you will also find oppose votes which note POV pushing. I hope that will elucidate you as to the reason for my vote, and also the applicability of it to Alex. Steve block talk 16:29, 20 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

List of massacres

Do you want to remove Vilnius massacre from there? Renata 19:25, 20 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Olga

I noted that you removed the reference to a statue to Olga of Kiev in the US (and the picture as well). I placed the comment plus the relating picture because it is my position that it is quite remarkable that emigrants erect such a statue in a foreign country as it attests to their linkage to the old country, the strength of this bond, and the continuous influence of O’s impact well beyond her immediate geographical orbit. Nor do I think that every country in the world would have been receptive to that “freedom of expression”. It appears to me therefore, that your comment that this addition is “superfluous” lacks substance. Your comment that her picture “litters” the web site is more of an affront to the good people who erected it than to me. Ekem 02:01, 21 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yur* Dolgoruk*

I replied at Talk:Yuri_Dolgoruki#Article name.—Ëzhiki (ërinacëus amurënsis) 15:28, 21 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Rundāle Palace, and Bermondt-Avalov

Privet! There are some pics of Rundāle Palace at the German Wiki article. I don't know if one can use them in the new article (I'm finding pic matters a bit too complex at the moment). Could you possibly add some?

Regarding Bermontians -- the article needs to be changed entirely before being expanded (see Talk:Bermontians), and I want to try to do that in the next few days. But I think the title should be changed. I've checked various books, and the most usual English name seems to be "West Russian Army." Do you agree? I do not want the name confused with Yudenich's army, etc. Whilst I do have plenty of detailed info on their forces, battles, politics, etc., in Latvia -- I don't have anything biographical on Pavel Bermondt-Avalov -- the stub somebody just started doesn't even have the birth and death dates. As well, the article should be wikified. --Pēteris Cedriņš 17:57, 21 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Спасибо! --Pēteris Cedriņš 15:52, 22 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

trobairitz

how dare you call my contributions to the "trobairitz" page "gibberish"?! for your information, i added several lesser-known trobairitz and the titles (first lines) of their songs. just because you personally don't understand something, doesn't make the information inaccurate or worthless. Beth 01:15, 23 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

La Palatina

Don't worry I'm not likely to forget about Sicily! Allthough I don't often write about Sicilian subjects (well apart from the one big one) I wondered who was reading the bios and DKNing them - thanks. I'm only boxing temporarily while I recharge my architectural batteries, I just became a little bogged down in "piano nobiles, facades and pediments" and felt like some action, and boxing has always been a hobby both taking part and watching. I will have a look at the Palatina as soon as I have finished my current murdering boxer, but I also have a major page on the architect William Wardell somewhere lost in a sand-box and he too has to be finished sometime, but I will have a loo I promise. Giano | talk 15:04, 23 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

My RfA

With apologies for the impersonal AWB-ness of the message... Thanks for your support on my recent request for adminship. It passed at 91/1/0, and I hope I can continue to deserve the community's trust. Let me know if there's anything I can do to help you, and if I make a mistake be sure to tell me. My talk page is always open. (ESkog)^(Talk) 02:41, 24 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Slavs

You reverted some additional info on Muslim roots in this part of Europe. Of course besides the Ottomans, there were the Central Asians. Do you disagree? Ksenon 09:56, 24 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Rydel (yes again)

Well finding out that the article Belarusian language has been unlocked since nobody offered any discussions he has returned and is once again reverting to his old habits. Please help! --Kuban Cossack 00:04, 25 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Russo-Persian War (1804-1813)

Do you think the article deserve a WP:DYK entry? abakharev 15:11, 25 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It is already there. --Ghirla | talk 15:30, 25 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]