On 8 November, 2006, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Château du Raincy, which you created. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the "Did you know?" talk page.

-- GeeJo ^(t)⁄ _(c) • 22:43, 8 November 2006 (UTC) reply

On November 9, 2006, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Palace of Poitiers, which you created. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the "Did you know?" talk page.

Blnguyen ( bananabucket) 05:54, 9 November 2006 (UTC) reply

On November 9, 2006, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Phanagoria, which you created. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the "Did you know?" talk page.

Blnguyen ( bananabucket) 23:39, 9 November 2006 (UTC) reply

Извини, просто в WP:NC написано очень много всего, не мог бы ты меня ткнуть носом конкретно в место, касающееся нашего случая? Я ей Богу, не понимаю, зачем удалять-то названия, какой от них вред? Как я понимаю, мы пишем оригинальное название (то есть на языке жителей, населявших город - в нашем случае это греческий), латинское название, потому что именно под латинскими именами эти города фигурируют во многих исторических источниках, и названия на языке/языках, которые сейчас употребляются в данной местности (таких языков три). Если очень хочется оставить из современных языков какой-то один, то этот один - украинский (единственный официальный язык). Воевать из-за этого мне лень, но я всё же искренне не понимаю, какой будет вред англоязычному читателю, если он узнает украинское и крымскотатарское названия. Don Alessandro 17:47, 9 November 2006 (UTC) reply

I don't think Crimean Tatar and Ukrainian names are particularly helpful, especially as they nearly coincide with the Russian name. Our aim when representing alternative names is to guide our readers to literature in original languages. By far the largest portion of literature on these sites have been published in Russian. For recent similar cases, you may want to check Talk:Nerchinsk or Talk:Koporye, to name only a few. Regards, Ghirla ^-трёп- 18:33, 9 November 2006 (UTC) reply

Woa, that looks awesome! DVD+ R/W 19:37, 9 November 2006 (UTC) reply

Thanks. I decided to be bold and merged Châteaux of the Loire Valley into Loire Valley. Let's see whether others will be happy with this. -- Ghirla ^-трёп- 19:49, 9 November 2006 (UTC) reply

You made the wise decision. They could be their own articles one day tho. DVD+ R/W 20:00, 9 November 2006 (UTC) reply

Hey Ghirlandajo, would you mind checking my edit to Tartu (and related comments at Talk:Tartu#Translations. and Talk:Haapsalu)? Olessi 20:42, 9 November 2006 (UTC) reply

Please see my proposal in Category_talk:Defunct_towns_in_Russia Vmenkov 23:15, 9 November 2006 (UTC) reply

I do not think this category is such a good idea. It is an anachronism. It will invite creation of even more problematic categories such as "of Ukraine", "of Moldavia", "of Switzerland", "of Iraq". Unlike China or India, "Russia" refers to a nation (state) but not to a geographic region in general. "Ancient peoples of Siberia", "of the Pontic steppe", etc. would make more sense, and these can still be in "Category:History of Russia". Also, regarding Proto-Indo-Europeans and Indo-Aryans, these are prehistoric peoples, assumed to have lived in parts of what is now Russia. This is too uncertain, you should at least restrict yourself to historical people, beginning with the Scythians. dab (ᛏ) 15:03, 10 November 2006 (UTC) reply

well, I'm just saying I don't think much good will come of this, knowing my Wikipedians. I can't think of any people that should be in Category:Ancient peoples of Russia but not in Category:Ancient peoples at the same time. It would be a similarly bad idea to do "Ancient peoples of the UK". Case in point, compare Russia top China. Russia is about the state evolved from Ancient Rus (but covering about ten times(?) the territory of the latter now. China is about a "cultural region". Just as with Russia, I don't think Category:Ancient peoples of China is a good idea. At least, the Xiongnu don't belong in it, since they may have lived in the territory of the contemporary PRC, but they did not live in China-the-region. Dividing topics of ancient history along modern state boundaries is a very bad idea. that doesn't just hold for Russia. dab (ᛏ) 15:26, 10 November 2006 (UTC) reply

I see your point. But most of these peoples are in the extreme south-west of the Russian federation, and with the blurry nature of these reports, it is impossible to say if their territory was completely within that of the RF. Also, you seem to be unaware of the "China" naming dispute. It is far from undisputed that "China" equals "People's Republic of China", even not considering boundary disputes. For the purposes of these categories, we seem to refer to the territory of the modern states, so they should be correctly called "Category:Ancient people on the territory of the Russian Federation" and "Category:Ancient people on the territory of the People's Republic of China" for clarity. "Russia" of Ivan the Terrible was quite a different territory from "Russia" today. If you really just want to unclutter Category:History of Russia, you should create regional sub-categories (e.g. by Federal districts of Russia; historical "Russia" proper will essentially just be the Central Federal District). Most of your Scythia-related peoples will end up in Category:History of Russia's Southern Federal District. To unclutter Category:Ancient peoples, it would make more sense to adopt ancient geographer's divisions, such as Category:Peoples of Scythia (to include peoples living in the region which are not unambiguously classifiable as "Scythians") dab (ᛏ) 15:56, 10 November 2006 (UTC) reply

we should think about this some more. there is no deadline :) all I am saying is that we have to be careful how to structure Category:History of Russia: it has a huge scope, and it is obvious it needs some sub-structure, but the question is complicated. I am creating Category:Scythia at the moment, which is for all things related to Scythia that doesn't necessary concern the Scythians themselves. I am not quite convinced this is a very good idea either... dab (ᛏ) 16:09, 10 November 2006 (UTC) reply

-- re Komedes, oh dear, this must have the same author as Asii. I am sure there is some value in it, but it has to be reviewed. Regarding the wagon image of the Государственный Эрмитаж, it is a very cool image. Do we have editors in Petersburg, maybe, who could take a GFDL snapshot from the museum directly? dab (ᛏ) 16:15, 10 November 2006 (UTC) reply

great images -- I'm happy with claiming fair use for them, but you know copyrighted images are strongly discouraged. At the end of the day, you can always place direct external links from articles to museum pages. If you find a Peterburgian willing to shoot GFDL images, I suppose we could easily collect some bucks for the museum entry. I'd certainly contribute an Euro or two if it gets us nice GFDL images. If photography isn't permitted within the museum, otoh, we should stick with fair use, since it will then apply that the "images are not easily reproduced" :) dab (ᛏ) 16:44, 10 November 2006 (UTC) reply

Category:Scythia isn't supposed to solve your problem with "History of Russia", or replace your "Ancient peoples of Russia" one. It is simply intended to group topics relating to a certain region and period, just like Category:Germany for present-day Germany, and Category:Mesopotamia for ancient Mesopotamia. There is no way around categories overlapping, this is no problem since we have categories, not a strictly hierarchical classification system. I think a "Scythia" category is necessary. Note that the Indo-Scythians, for example, belong under "Scythians", not "Scythia", and the Maeotian marshes belong under "Scythia", not "Scythians". The categories overlap but aren't identical or supersets. dab (ᛏ) 16:57, 10 November 2006 (UTC) reply

Hello, Andrey!

I see that you have removed an edit I wrote to the article about Pskov. I agree fully, that Pskov has never been a Finnish town, nor an Estonian. My point was merely to give a Finnish translitteration to the noun 'Pskov', if anyone might be interested from that. As Finland has many historical and geographical ties with Russia, as you might already know, it is only reasonable that also a Finnish translitteration of 'Pskov' (i.e. Pihkova) is given.

On 10 November, 2006, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Château de Tanlay, which you nominated. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the "Did you know?" talk page.

-- Allen3  ^talk 22:41, 10 November 2006 (UTC) reply

Did you know? was updated. On 11 November, 2006, a fact from the article Château de Courances, which you recently nominated, 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.

-- Allen3  ^talk 12:16, 11 November 2006 (UTC) reply

Look what I found Большая Советская Энциклопедия. Thousands of 1970s images from the 3rd edition that can be uploaded under fair use for anything. Also right now I have the original 1950s 2nd edition of the encyclopedia in 50+ hardbacks with excellent PD images in them. Any requests?

Here is a taster Новгород. -- Kuban Cossack 13:45, 11 November 2006 (UTC) reply

I'm well aware of these resources, thanks. -- Ghirla ^-трёп- 13:59, 11 November 2006 (UTC) reply

I think I'm missing something - what do you mean? -- Mcginnly | Natter 22:57, 11 November 2006 (UTC) reply

Hi Ghirla, could you take a look at this when you have a chance? Especially the phrases <<командирован в Кремлевскую экспедицию в Москву>> and <<Перезахоронен в Некрополе>>, which I couldn't quite translate. Also if you see anything else to add or that needs editing, please do. Thanks, DVD+ R/W 08:42, 12 November 2006 (UTC) reply

An image or media file that you uploaded or altered, Image:Sovchampagne.jpg, has been listed at Wikipedia:Images and media for deletion. Please look there to see why this is (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry), if you are interested in its not being deleted. Thank you. — Chowbok ☠ 20:06, 12 November 2006 (UTC) reply

If you don't like the image of Soviet champagne or feel that it violates someone's copyrights, I give you permission to delete it, provided that you produce a free replacement. I want to remark that the image was uploaded under Template:PD-Soviet and was perfectly valid, until the template was suddenly deprecated and turned invalid, for reasons unknown to me. Good luck, Ghirla ^-трёп- 07:40, 13 November 2006 (UTC) reply

I tried to stop this but I think I just made it worse. User:Sebbeng 20:18, 12 November 2006 (UTC) reply

There were some changes to Russian law. Wandalstouring 23:44, 20 December 2006 (UTC) reply

Zdorovo, do you think this is DYKable: Tondrakians ?-- Eupator 21:30, 12 November 2006 (UTC) reply

Also, I remember discussing this with you, but you don't object moving Battle of Vartanantz to Battle of Avarayr right? See: [1] for an example.

Tondrakians is stubby, if you ask me. As for the battle, I have no opinion whether it should be moved or not. We should ascertain which name is more popular in English-language academic literature. So far, I don't see many benefits from this move. -- Ghirla ^-трёп- 11:10, 13 November 2006 (UTC) reply

Google returns 321 unique results for "battle of avarayr", 98 unique results for "battle of avarair" and 270 unique results for "battle of vartanantz" a good number of which are mirrors of the wiki article. Since both Armenian and Russian sources use "Battle of Avarayr" and English sources also seem to prefer that I recommend a move unless you do object.-- Eupator 17:40, 13 November 2006 (UTC) reply

Thanks for the move! Can you take a look at Tondrakians again? I added a little more info using primary sources.-- Eupator 20:07, 13 November 2006 (UTC) reply

Did you know? was updated. On November 13, 2006, a fact from the article via Giulia, which you recently nominated, 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.

Thanks again, Ghirla. Blnguyen ( bananabucket) 04:59, 13 November 2006 (UTC) reply

A propos on Macarius I: how should we format the nameы of ecclesiaticals? Right now we have, in Macarius I:

Macarius I (Russian: Mikhail Petrovich Bulgakov)

This looks outright weird -- as if he was called "Bulgakov" in Russian and "Macarius" in English (or Latin perhaps). This obviously was not the case -- he was born M.P.Bulgakov (well, actually baptized "Mikhail", I suppose), and when he joined a monastic order, we received the monastic name "Makariy". I suggest that we can emulate the article on Pope John Paul II, which goes like this:

Pope John Paul II ( Latin: Ioannes Paulus PP. II), ( Italian: Giovanni Paolo II), born {Karol Józef Wojtyła}} (May 18, 1920 – April 2, 2005) ...

The entry for Patriarch Sergius I of Moscow is formatted similarly. Can we do something like this for Macarius too? E.g. like this:

Macarius I ( Russian: Макарий, Makariy), born Mikhail Petrovich Bulgakov (Russian: ...),(1816-18882), was the Metropolitan of Moscow and Kolomna ...

Just saw your recent change to Macarius I -- thanks!

Hi, thanks for your note. The two comments you point to may seem bad out of context, but I assure you that they were both only left after provocation. If you're planning on reporting me for that, I hope you will also report Sebbeng for this, to be fair. (The "none of your business" comment was a response to that edit, not to a question about image tagging, BTW—if you look through my edit history you'll see that polite questions about images have been met with attempts to be helpful.) A lot of people have taken out their frustrations about a change in policy on me, and I've always been civil except when specifically provoked (and usually even then). But since you have pointed this out, I will redouble my efforts to be polite, even when provoked. After all, since people are getting upset at my (wholly in policy) actions, that's all the more reason I should be extra patient. Please keep an eye on my responses and let me know if you feel I am incivil in the future. Do keep in mind, though, that people will continue to consider me disruptive, simply because they disagree with the current fair use policy. Thanks! — Chowbok ☠ 15:52, 13 November 2006 (UTC) reply

You keep blanking my article without any attempt at discussion! What do you THINK is "nonsense"? -- HanzoHattori 16:27, 13 November 2006 (UTC) reply

I saw you pasting to Wikipedia pieces of inflammatory, unsourced original research. You should be aware that Wikipedia is neither a battleground not a blog for expressing your personal opinions. I have met numerous nationalists who behaved along these lines and indulged in irresponsible genocide talk. They are all banned from editing Wikipedia. Your provokations will be reverted as sternly and promptly as possible. Take care, Ghirla ^-трёп- 16:32, 13 November 2006 (UTC) reply

It seems that now you have decided that the blast and the 1495 attack is a part of the war dated 1496-99, the Russo-Swedish War (1496-99). It seems to me that you do not have a grasp of chronology and that your idea is mistaken. How an incident, containing an attack, that took place in 1495, can be a part of a war 1496-99 ? Better reasons and more solid evidence than now given are needed. It also seems to me that you have not participated in discussion where the chronological mismatch was pointed, you just made the edit as you decided, without regard to input from other editors. Shilkanni 17:49, 13 November 2006 (UTC) reply

Yes I agree - I'll happily canvas the wikiproject members - perhaps you know others who edit architecture articles - giano, wetman etc.? I've been thinking about a kind of architectural "signpost" where we could transclude a weekly newletter to project members, it seems like a drudge to me though to administer, so i'll post the idea on the project noticeboard and see if there are any takers. -- Mcginnly | Natter 00:45, 14 November 2006 (UTC) reply

When you said "please expand" did you mean the article or the synopsis? I expanded the later; if you meant the former, I've tried to keep what is there succinct. I have somewhat of a derth of pre-1839 references at my disposal but I could see what I could do. -- Kendrick7 ^talk 08:34, 14 November 2006 (UTC) reply

Kendrick, I was thinking about the article. -- Ghirla ^-трёп- 08:38, 14 November 2006 (UTC) reply

Ah, OK, well it is getting better. I've got more to work in, but must sleep. -- Kendrick7 ^talk 11:05, 14 November 2006 (UTC) reply

Always remember the crucial first space, otherwise the message is something else entirely. -- ALoan (Talk) 11:16, 14 November 2006 (UTC) reply

This user is resorting to namecalling again [2] and accusing me of bad faith. User:Sebbeng 14:52, 14 November 2006 (UTC) reply

On November 14, 2006, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Pereshchepina Treasure, which you created. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the "Did you know?" talk page.

Hi Ghirla

Nice work creating this template. I've seen most of these names before but a few of them puzzles me, in particular the name "Alaborg" The only name that jumps to mind is the Faroese name for Aalborg, but are you referring to the same town? Just curious.

Btw, I also like your idea about a template for the Viking ring forts. Happy editing. Valentinian ^{(talk) / (contribs)} 21:47, 14 November 2006 (UTC) reply

Hello. I would like to know your opinion. Do you think I should add coordinates to the text or to the top right corner ? Thank you. - Darwinek 09:59, 15 November 2006 (UTC) reply

Fêtes champêtre must be a lot more fun where you come from, in Italy we keep our clothes on! Giano 13:55, 15 November 2006 (UTC) reply

LOL. You know it snows here in Yaroslavl. I associate the term with Giorgione's painting and think it worthwhile to mention another meaning of the word. If you think otherwise, you are welcome to restore Lancret's painting. Nevertheless, fête galante claims that "the term "fête galante" is used most often to refer to a genre of drawings and paintings depicting such parties". The same goes for fêtes champêtre. The Luncheon on the Grass was the 19th-century take on Fête champêtre, I think. -- Ghirla ^-трёп- 14:16, 15 November 2006 (UTC) reply

No no, leave things as they are I'm all for healthy nudity, so long as it's not me when the wasps and mosquitos come to join the feast. Giano 14:50, 15 November 2006 (UTC) reply

Yes I've often wondered about that painting too, why if it was so hot the women had to take all their clothes off, while the men sat in ties and even coats? My wife would say that was gratuitous! Giano 14:53, 15 November 2006 (UTC) reply

The answer is obvious. The grisettes on Monet's painting are nude because it is a parody of Giorgione's work. Mythological associations which seemed natural to an early 16th-century artist, seemed offensive when transported to a realistic bourgeois setting of the Parisian suburbia. -- Ghirla ^-трёп- 15:22, 15 November 2006 (UTC) reply

Right OK! Nothing to do with liking to see ladies with their kit off then? Giano 15:25, 15 November 2006 (UTC) reply

I must remember to suggest that we take the children on a fête champêtre or fête galante the next weekend it is sunny. So much more pleasant than a bourgeois picnic. -- ALoan (Talk) 15:26, 15 November 2006 (UTC) reply

ALoan it is November - your wife and every other woman will refuse to enter into the spirit of tha affair, and you will be left looking very blue and very small! Giano 15:28, 15 November 2006 (UTC) reply

Could you do me a favor and go to Talk:2006 Georgian-Russian espionage controversy where (as Kober claims) my "xenophobic" posts are located.Please search for any quotes which show (as Kober claims) "my anger towards other nations" or other forms of ethnic discrimination.Please post the results and your humble opinion at my discussion page.

Yours thruly, Dimts 15:12, 15 November 2006 (UTC) reply

I am considering proposing this as an FAC. What do you think? Briangotts (Talk) (Contrib) 16:51, 15 November 2006 (UTC) reply

Why don't we try a peer review first? -- Ghirla ^-трёп- 16:57, 15 November 2006 (UTC) reply

I've found those to be generally of limited value unless it's a topic a lot of people are interested in, but I'll put it up and see what happens. Briangotts (Talk) (Contrib) 17:22, 15 November 2006 (UTC) reply

You can also try an A-class review in the military history project. Wandalstouring 23:51, 20 December 2006 (UTC) reply

Thanks!
Thanks for your input on my (nearly recent) Request for adminship, which regretfully achived no consensus, with votes of 68/28/2. I am grateful for the input received, both positive and in opposition, and I'd like to thank you for your participation.
Georgewilliamherbert 04:50, 16 November 2006 (UTC) reply

Who do you think he is on fi.wiki? Khoi khoi 04:58, 16 November 2006 (UTC) reply

Hello, Ghirlandajo! I noticed that you have contributed to several ballet-related articles. Keitei and I have begun a WikiProject for Ballet in my userspace. We hope to recruit enough members to make this a feasible WikiProject, and would appreciate your support! You can join at the WikiProject page or leave any suggestions on the talk page.
Thanks! — E ditor at Large ^(speak) 13:00, 16 November 2006 (UTC) reply

You are engaged in a move-war over Polish Expedition to Kiev. You refuse to discuss it on talk and you won't discuss it here [3]. This is your warning... William M. Connolley 20:00, 16 November 2006 (UTC) reply

William, it is best to investigate the matter before throwing "warnings". More here. -- Irpen 20:36, 16 November 2006 (UTC) reply

Irpen, it would be best if you addressed the substance - the refusal to talk and the removal of polite attempts at discussion here William M. Connolley 21:41, 16 November 2006 (UTC) reply

William, you should have looked at the history of that page to see who wrote the article and who started moving it at whim. Actually, I initiated discussion of the move on the appropriate noticeboard quite some time ago and received no feedback whatsoever. The discussion is linked from the Russian new articles noticeboard, which both my opponents have on their watchlists. As well known to everyone regularly editing these topics, I don't speak with Appleseed and Piotrus unless they apologise for years that I've been subjected to their personal attacks and incivilities. This latest delation is another rude attempt to denounce me behind my back and to bring in an observer who has no clue as to the substance of the content dispute. It does not help to clear the air, on the contrary. Finally, in contrast to Appleseed and Co, I don't engage in edit warring, I engage in creating new stuff. Before your unwarranted interference, I started today the articles about Gnezdovo, Sarskoe Gorodishche, Alaborg, Timerevo, Black Grave, Dmitry Samokvasov, Lyubsha... have I forgotten anything? Now I have to stop writing another article and go argue endlessly with revert warriors whose own articles I have yet to see. That it's useless to talk with them I know from years of experience. One look at Talk:Jogaila and its endless archives says it all. Do I want to drag myself into a similar mire over some petty issue? No I don't. Furthermore, your failure to issue a warning to a disruptive troll ( when I asked a couple of days ago) and your ready jumping into an ordinary content dispute in this case... well, I would not jump to conclusions about your standards... these conclusions are pretty obvious to everyone. -- Ghirla ^-трёп- 22:52, 16 November 2006 (UTC) reply

Is it true that the Latvian word for "Russians", krievi, is derived from the name of the Krivichs tribe? I'm asking just out of curiosity. Beit Or 13:03, 17 November 2006 (UTC) reply

Yes it's true. -- Ghirla ^-трёп- 13:05, 17 November 2006 (UTC) reply

what a weirdo... I tried to clean up Cambyses, but he really needs to be taught some guidelines. dab (ᛏ) 17:28, 17 November 2006 (UTC) reply

Article started. Beit Or 19:52, 17 November 2006 (UTC) reply

Nice work on this, as well as Alaborg and the others. Also thanks for helping to clean up and expand the art section in Sviatoslav I of Kiev. Briangotts (Talk) (Contrib) 20:20, 17 November 2006 (UTC) reply

Thanks. I don't think that either Khazaria or Volga Bulgaria should be part of the template. Their connections with the Viking world are tenuous: the locations are not directly attested in sagas, neither there is archaeological evidence of substantial Varangian settlement in these lands. I suggest a separate template for Khazaria. -- Ghirla ^-трёп- 09:24, 18 November 2006 (UTC) reply

Didn't you actually mean Gaumata? Space Cadet 22:53, 17 November 2006 (UTC) reply

My edit history shows what I had in mind. -- Ghirla ^-трёп- 09:08, 18 November 2006 (UTC) reply

Assuming that Darius the Great wasn't lying, Gaumata would make it a grand total of two. There were lots and lots of fakers out there claiming to be all sorts of people (my favorite is that 19th century joker who claimed to be the 375-year-old Sebastian of Portugal), but NONE of them actually took over and sat on a throne for real. I put down what I did because, the first False Dmitry was unique in that he managed to actually pull it off.

Did you know? was updated. On 18 November, 2006, a fact from the article Tondrakians, which you recently nominated, 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.

-- Allen3  ^talk 01:10, 18 November 2006 (UTC) reply

On 19 November, 2006, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Grobin, which you created. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the "Did you know?" talk page.

-- GeeJo ^(t)⁄ _(c) • 05:04, 19 November 2006 (UTC) reply

Why did you remove the mention of James Randi being refused contact by Church officials on grounds of ' vanity'? Who's vanity? I researched the issue on Google Groups, among other places, found this interesting bit and added a mention to it in this article. Some guy's personal correspondence with Randi is not very reputable evidence, but neither is it vanity.

Hi,

I'm working on Andrea Palladio on the norwegian Wikipedia, and I notice that You have introduced Villa Chiericati as a redirect to Palazzo Chiericati, and used a picture of the latter as if it were a picture of the former in the article Palladian Villas of the Veneto. These buildings are not the same. The Palazzo is inside Vicenza, but the villa is in the countryside - as it should be. The villa has a temple front but no wings. I have not found any pictures of the villa on commons. Haros 08:56, 19 November 2006 (UTC) reply

• An easy and very common mistake (made by many Italians too).

• Palazzo Chiericati
• Villa Chiericati

Perhaps the page could be renamed the "Works of Palladio" there may not be wings as such, but I would be amazed if somewhere Palladio had not designed a range of staff and agricultural buildings to complement the villa, even Villa Capra "La Rotonda" had such a feature hidden away. The picture of the Villa shows something to ones side, but that may be a later addition. I'll see what I can re-search Giano 11:26, 19 November 2006 (UTC) reply

I don't think renaming that page is the solution. As "Palladian Villas of the Veneto" is on the UNESCO list of world heritage, it should stay. Someone (perhaps me if I get around to writing an article on that villa in :no) might create an article about it. On no:Palazzo Chiericati I have a link to The Centro Internazionale di Studi di Architettura Andrea Palladios page on Palazzo Chiericati where also Villa Chiericati exist. I'm working from books, but these webpages are useful as well.

There are no wings on la Rotunda - it was never intended as an agricultural building. Palladio did not include it among his villas, but among the town buildings in quattro libri. But it is identical (almost) on 4 sides. There are some additional buildings along the driveway - where you are entering it if visiting it today. I think these are more recent, but do not have the source for thast information here and now. Haros 15:00, 19 November 2006 (UTC) reply

• I have just written a quick stub Villa Chiericati. Tha ancillary buildings at Villa Capra were built sometime after 1591 probably by Vincenzo Scamozzi. Giano 15:31, 19 November 2006 (UTC) reply

That was quick! - The information looks correct - But I only have my memory to work on at the moment. Pity You don't put the pictures on commons. Haros 15:39, 19 November 2006 (UTC) reply

• The information is correct. I don't upload to commons because in this pocket of uncivilised Europe we do not have broadband internet connection, and for some reason it takes ten times longer to upload to commons and the internet times out before the process is complete. Giano 16:25, 19 November 2006 (UTC) reply

I did not try to imply that it was not - just in case :-) The timing thing is strange. Good change to the picture text in the Palladian villa ... article by the way. The Palazzo is also mentioned on the list, but in the context of Vicenza. Until next time - bye. Haros 16:57, 19 November 2006 (UTC) reply

On 19 November, 2006, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Alaborg, which you created. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the "Did you know?" talk page.

-- GeeJo ^(t)⁄ _(c) • 11:43, 19 November 2006 (UTC) reply

On 19 November, 2006, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Sarskoye Gorodishche, which you created. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the "Did you know?" talk page.

-- GeeJo ^(t)⁄ _(c) • 18:12, 19 November 2006 (UTC) reply

On November 20, 2006, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Gnezdovo, which you created. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the "Did you know?" talk page.

Blnguyen ( bananabucket) 03:14, 20 November 2006 (UTC) reply

...for the Stalin quotation query I'd posted on the Language Reference Desk* last week. I appreciate your confirming my provisional translation, and I'll be updating the Medal For the Victory Over Germany page with this pertinent, heretofore missing information.

(* Actually, I hadn't even known that was the proper place to post; I'd initially queried on Humanities. Now I'll visit that page more often; perhaps I can be of assistance to others.)

Also I intend to revisit your User page, Andrey - your prolific activity is admirable, and as a relatively new Wikipedia editor myself, with an interest in Russia (as I'm a Holocaust scholar in Real Life), I believe I've got a lot to learn from you! -- Cheers, Deborahjay 07:12, 20 November 2006 (UTC) reply

On 20 November, 2006, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Timerevo, which you created. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the "Did you know?" talk page.

-- GeeJo ^(t)⁄ _(c) • 10:12, 20 November 2006 (UTC) reply

Hi, Ghirlandajo! The problem I had with this was that the spelling used in scholarly literature refers to the archaeological site, not to the modern village. Yet, the very first line of the article says that "Gnyozdovo is a village", and only then discusses the archaeological site. Ideally, the village information should be split out (to "Gnyozdovo"), but since there is not nearly enough information even for a marginal stub, my suggestion would be to rephrase the lead. The end result, in my view, should look like Timerevo, where there is nothing to complain about. Please let me know if it's not feasible or if you prefer an alternative solution. Thanks.— Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • ( yo?); 21:30, 20 November 2006 (UTC) reply

[4] ;-D Giano 09:40, 21 November 2006 (UTC) reply

Did you know? was updated. On 21 November, 2006, a fact from the article Nordic Classicism, which you recently nominated, 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.

-- GeeJo ^(t)⁄ _(c) • 14:34, 21 November 2006 (UTC) reply

Большое спасибо! I look forward to picking it up the next time I'm in Russia. Errabee 15:33, 21 November 2006 (UTC) reply

Please e-mail me to r_bekker@bezeqint.net to talk about the situation. Or talk by ICQ - my UIN is 17799297. rombik 12:50, 22 November 2006 (UTC) reply

As a reply to your message on my talk page, Dvina River delta is here. Kindly follow the river to see that it flows from the Perm area. The present-day Perm Krai is a part of the ancient Perm, known as the Great Perm. -- Drieakko 16:24, 22 November 2006 (UTC) reply

I'm not going to argue with you from where the Dvina River flows, because it is common knowledge that Sukhona flows from Lake Kubenskoye, which is part of Vologda Oblast, a long way from Perm Krai. As to your article about the "princely state" with the capital in Cherdyn it is based on online spoof and as such meets our criteria for speedy deletion. -- Ghirla ^-трёп- 16:31, 22 November 2006 (UTC) reply

Ghirla, kindly slow down in your hasty actions. A major tributary to Dvina called Vychegda flows from the Perm area, see [5] or [6]. As for the Great Perm, it is not a spoof and the related article was just the only online reference I found. -- Drieakko 16:43, 22 November 2006 (UTC) reply

I have no idea for corretc title. I merely moved the article, since it squatted the page Petrushka. I wasn' thinking too long, assumed similarly to L'Oiseau de feu and Le sacre du printemps that the original title was in French. Now I see that both latter titles are translated in English in wikipedia and basically agree with this. Which name you think is better: Petrushka (ballet) or Petrushka (Stravinsky) (I seee both versions in interwikis)? `' mikkanarxi 17:05, 22 November 2006 (UTC) reply

I'd prefer Petrushka (ballet). Perhaps we should ask in the Ballet Project. -- Ghirla ^-трёп- 17:18, 22 November 2006 (UTC) reply

Do you have any information on the strength of the Livonian side, and the casualties of both sides? -- Ineffable3000 19:06, 22 November 2006 (UTC) reply

Did you know? was updated. On November 23, 2006, a fact from the article Villa Molin, which you recently nominated, 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? was updated. On November 23, 2006, a fact from the article Battle of Schöngrabern, which you recently nominated, 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.

Many thanks for the scouting again. Blnguyen ( bananabucket) 01:53, 23 November 2006 (UTC) reply

Did you know? was updated. On 23 November, 2006, a fact from the article Battle of Rakovor, which you recently nominated, 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.

-- GeeJo ^(t)⁄ _(c) • 16:18, 23 November 2006 (UTC) reply

I like this idea very much. I will work on some improvements over the next few days when I'm able. Briangotts (Talk) (Contrib) 05:00, 24 November 2006 (UTC) reply

Your Featured picture candidate has been promoted Your nomination for featured picture status, Image:Vasnetsov samolet.jpg, gained a consensus of support, and has been promoted. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates. Thanks! KFP ( talk | contribs) 11:45, 24 November 2006 (UTC) reply

Hi Ghirla,

Just to let you know that the Featured Picture Image:Vasnetsov samolet.jpg is due to make an appearance as Picture of the Day on March 12, 2007. If you get a chance, you can check and improve the caption at Template:POTD/2007-03-12. howcheng { chat} 17:24, 9 February 2007 (UTC) reply

Hey, I would like you to explain your serious (and quite pointless tbh) accusations at my talkpage. To be honest,Ghirlandajo, you are saying me that I am a neonazi and I deny Holocaust? -- Pudeo ( Talk) 12:24, 24 November 2006 (UTC) reply

Nope, I don't know anything about you except that you have been cited by Arbitration Commitee as a sockpuppet of a user permabanned for disruption. I saw you accuse respected editors who oppose nazi propaganda in the project of being "wikistalinists". Please don't do this again. This is simply not acceptable. -- Ghirla ^-трёп- 12:34, 24 November 2006 (UTC) reply

I added the Battle of Rakovor to Image:Confederation of Livonia 1260.svg, along with a couple of other locations ( Fellin & Ascheraden) and did a bit of minor touch-up as well. Thanks for the suggestion. MapMaster 16:17, 24 November 2006 (UTC) P.S. For my money, I would think that the name of the battle should be the Battle of Wesenberg in keeping with the name of the town in 1268, but I won't change it. reply

Did you know? was updated. On 24 November, 2006, a fact from the article Maria Feodorovna (Sophie Dorothea of Württemberg), which you recently nominated, 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.

-- GeeJo ^(t)⁄ _(c) • 17:14, 24 November 2006 (UTC) reply

I reverted you here :(. I see your point and I generally refrain from awarding more than one Barnstar to my Wikifriends, but let's not embarass other into doing the same. After all, it's their business. On a side note, would you help with Kiev Pechersk Lavra? You wrote a great peace on another Ukrainian Lavra once upon a time. This one deserves a great article no less. That's of course if you have time for it. -- Irpen 17:54, 24 November 2006 (UTC) reply

I can't embark on such an important subject now. I will take a look at the articles recently started but I don't think you could proceed much further before correcting the monastery's name. "Kiev Pechersk Lavra" is pure original research. -- Ghirla ^-трёп- 16:02, 27 November 2006 (UTC) reply

How do you think we should call it? -- Irpen 17:04, 27 November 2006 (UTC) reply

I don't know but certainly not "Pechersk". The name of the district is derived from the caves of the monastery and not otherwise. Perhaps "Kievo-Pecherska Lavra" or "Kiev Cave Lavra"? This needs to be discussed. -- Ghirla ^-трёп- 18:41, 27 November 2006 (UTC) reply

On 25 November, 2006, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Alexander Dmitriev-Mamonov, which you created. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the "Did you know?" talk page.

On 25 November, 2006, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Medusa (Leonardo da Vinci), which you created. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the "Did you know?" talk page.

-- GeeJo ^(t)⁄ _(c) • 07:10, 25 November 2006 (UTC) reply

Ghirlandajo, your allegation is baseless. You try to accuse me of contacts with "anti-Russians", for example. All in all, my contacts are not "anti-Russian". Your written accusation is regarded as personal attack, and you have been warned of such, and it is also slander. This warning is also for purposes of managing administration of warnings and ArbCom admonishments, and its removal is regarded as vandalism. Shilkanni 18:45, 25 November 2006 (UTC) reply

Shilkanni, your threats don't cut ice with me. I don't accuse you of anything but canvassing supporters for tendentious editing. That's what you do and there's no denying it. If you qualify it as a personal attack, you are welcome to post your misgiving WP:PAIN. Your recentmost edit was to invite an editor with who I'm on no speaking terms and who yesterday equated the Red Army to Nazis to comment on your conduct as "a neutral party". This is getting too ridiculous, sorry. -- Ghirla ^-трёп- 19:25, 25 November 2006 (UTC) reply

Regarding your problems with ice, it strikes me that quite probably, you should work towards getting rid of some fixations. And, anti-POV is truly not the same thing as "anti-Russian". There are of course some who may believe those to be identical, but that's certainly not the prevalent view, nor the one supported by Wikipedia policies. Then, you seems to have some misconception of warnings being threats. I have not time to start lecture what such is symptomatic of. Let it suffice to say that warnings are not threats as long as they are heeded. Then the problematics of your capability to co-operate with others. It is really sad that you are not on speaking terms with some. For example I believe to be on speaking terms with my opponents, and I do not hesitate to ask opinion of some with whom I have, even very publicly, disagreed in the past. Well, you accuse me of tendentious editing. With which detailed reasons? Just upon your belief that Tatiana Konstantinovich's marriage was morganatic and upon your belief there is no controversy in that issue? Shilkanni 20:48, 25 November 2006 (UTC) reply

I'm not going to respond to your ill-conceived attempts at lecturing and wikilawyering. Suffice it to say that I take no side about the status of the Romanov-Bagration marriages. I just object to the methods chosen by you for settling content disputes. Canvassing supporters among those wikipedians who are known for their tendentious editing is hardly a good idea. I urge you to consult WP:DICK and stop lecturing people who have superior experience in the project and understanding of policy. If you want to settle the dispute, you should list the page on WP:RFC and talk with your opponents, rather than canvas traditional opponents of your opponents to drop in. This is my last comment on the issue. -- Ghirla ^-трёп- 21:10, 25 November 2006 (UTC) reply

		The Working Man's Barnstar
		For your excellent work on Sviatoslav I of Kiev, please keep it up! Khoi khoi 21:39, 25 November 2006 (UTC) reply

Ah, I see. No problem. Khoi khoi 05:27, 30 November 2006 (UTC) reply

Hi, Ghirla. As per accepted Romanization there, the transliteration of –ий ending is optional (-iy or -y), so don't bother yourself :) -- Brand спойт 22:57, 25 November 2006 (UTC) reply

I've initiated a request for commentary on Chowbok. Since you've had a previous dispute with him over image uploads and his RfU tagging would you care to comment? (and feel free to improve the case) [7] User:Sebbeng 04:12, 26 November 2006 (UTC) reply

I'd like to nominate it for FA of the Day; when possible the FA of the day is chosen because that day has a particular significance to the topic in question (the date of a battle, date of birth, etc.) Are there any days in Russian tradition that are associated with Sviatoslav? Briangotts (Talk) (Contrib) 05:58, 26 November 2006 (UTC) reply

I was thinking maybe the date of a battle but the only date I was able to find was a reference to July 21 falling during the seige of Dorostolon and the only description was "Sviatoslav and his men continued to fight".... so I put it up with no particular date requested on Wikipedia:Today's featured article/requests. It was nice working with you on this one. I'd like to get Rus' Khaganate up to FA status next... Briangotts (Talk) (Contrib) 15:25, 27 November 2006 (UTC) reply

Hi, would you please pay a look at Our Lady of Kursk talk page? I'm just suspecting that the transliteration of one cyrilic word there is not correct, however, I noticed you have edited in this article and haven't amend that, which means that I may be well wrong anyway (I can't speak Russian, just starting...) Thanks Mountolive 04:19, 27 November 2006 (UTC) reply

I'm somewhat puzzled by your undiscussed move of Treaty of Kulja, so I invite your for a discussion at Talk:Treaty of Kulja.-- Niohe 21:42, 27 November 2006 (UTC) reply

Did you know? was updated. On November 28, 2006, a fact from the article Prehistoric Finnish campaigns, which you recently nominated, 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.

Thanks again for your work, as usual. Blnguyen ( bananabucket) 05:04, 28 November 2006 (UTC) reply

You seem to live in some sort of misapprehension about the application of WP naming conventions. Apparently you believe that they dictate what form of name of a thing, place or person to use in an article. However, that is a mistaken belief. If you read carefully, you will find that Naming Conventions ( WP:NC) are intended for determining the name of article, nothing more. What form to use in text of articles, depends also upon context and other style-related considerations.
I am aware that you have a habit of erasing even warnings from your talkpage. However, that makes rather difficult to others to follow what issues you are already informed about. So, please do not erase this messaage, as this will help also others (including those who do managerial tasks here) to see that you have become aware of your mistake. Shilkanni 05:29, 28 November 2006 (UTC) reply

Please don't bother me with attempts to lecture or threats in the future. I am immune to incivil outbursts on your part. It's good to hear that you still continue familiarizing yourself with WP:NC. Please go on. Then there is a chance that you will learn some day that the "form of name of a thing, place or person to use in an article" is dictated by the article's name. We can't name the article Chennai and call the city Madras throughout the article, can we? -- Ghirla ^-трёп- 09:01, 28 November 2006 (UTC) reply

Thank you for the DYK nomination. :) -- Drieakko 07:38, 28 November 2006 (UTC) reply

I have a few days away, and return to find you in charge? You dare to revert me [8] ;-) Giano 10:05, 28 November 2006 (UTC) reply

I attempted to contact you via Google Chat to discuss Fred's edit, but you were apparently busy fixing the article. I reverted to the previous version and pressed save, to find that you had forestalled me! -- Ghirla ^-трёп- 10:12, 28 November 2006 (UTC) reply

I see this as a power struggle between Russia and Italy! Be warned. I received you google message, but for some reason my computer won't let me reply to them, keeps saying you are a pop-advertisement and wants to send you to the trash bin - which would be uncomfortable for you! Giano 10:17, 28 November 2006 (UTC) reply

Or perhaps between Moscow and London? I believe the countries are involved in some spying scandal now. Don't you think they monitor our e-mail? -- Ghirla ^-трёп- 11:16, 28 November 2006 (UTC) reply

I've often wondered about that, well they are going to be jolly frightened by the one I've just sent you. You had better pray they don't deport you to America, as I've heard there is a someone waiting for you! Giano 15:02, 28 November 2006 (UTC) reply

Привет! Я специально уточнял с названием. В старинных русских источниках эти события трактуются как "Казанская война" (в то время как большая часть московско-казанских войн - как походы). Татарская энциклопедия даёт название "Освободительные войны в Казанском крае" (интервики на татарский). Так что раз это название не придуманное мной, а вполне историческое, то я верну обрато на Kazan Liberation War. -- Üñţïf̣ļëŗ (see also: ә? Ә!) 12:57, 28 November 2006 (UTC) reply

Извиняюсь, я не видел твоего ответа на обсуждении Российского портала... а почему не рекомендуется использовать такое название?-- Üñţïf̣ļëŗ (see also: ә? Ә!) 13:00, 28 November 2006 (UTC) reply

Раз уж разговор состоялся, то следующий вопрос: как действительно перевести "горная сторона", не задействовав слово "Татарстан" - его тогда просто не было, к тому же Горная сторона это ещё и часть Мари Эл, вся Чувашия. И потом, Upland - это, я так понимаю, страна гор. Но название "Горная сторона" происходит не от гористости её местности, а от того, что тот берег Волги, на котором она находится, "горный" - т.е. обрывистый. Как бы этот смысл передать на английском поточнее?-- Üñţïf̣ļëŗ (see also: ә? Ә!) 13:08, 28 November 2006 (UTC) reply

Кстати, люди, что писали эту статью, явно не советскими источниками пользовались... -- Üñţïf̣ļëŗ (see also: ә? Ә!) 13:16, 28 November 2006 (UTC) reply

On 28 November, 2006, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Yevgeny Samoylov, which you created. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the "Did you know?" talk page.

-- GeeJo ^(t)⁄ _(c) • 18:41, 28 November 2006 (UTC) reply

Hello, and thank you (I suppose) for at least voting neutral. I would like to make four brief points, though: 1. Those "very minor, pedantic edits" are still useful. 2. I've also made major edits. 3. Edit summaries aren't especially helpful for minor edits; writing "removed excess comma" every time would get tiresome. Plus, some editors can be trusted to do the right thing (myself included, I hope), so it's not really necessary to examine all their minor edits. 4. I've stated what I wanted to do as an admin; to some extent, you never know exactly what someone will do once he's empowered. Biruitorul 20:06, 28 November 2006 (UTC) reply

Thank you very much for your suggestions and corrections for my Image:Ancient Greek_Colonies of N Black Sea.png. I have endeavoured to put them into the second version of the map, with the exception of my decision to leave the 450 BCE date in place (instead I changed the name of Eupatoria to "Kerkinitida (Eupatoria))". Let me know if you see anything else that needs to be addessed. Cheers, MapMaster 04:06, 29 November 2006 (UTC) reply

May I ask you to review this, please? Thanks.— Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • ( yo?); 14:35, 29 November 2006 (UTC) reply

Oh, the humanity! I had my doubts about a second RfA, but even I couldn't have predicted the way it caught fire and inexorably drifted to the ground in flames, causing quite a stir on its way down. Still, it was encouraging to see the level of support and confidence. Thank you for yours, and I hope I'll still have it the next time around. Kafziel Talk 14:38, 29 November 2006 (UTC) reply

Commented. Will keep an eye on how things develop.

I overhauled this somewhat, added a few sections.

A few issues to consider:

1. I added a large number of settlements - right now they are arranged geographically but maybe it would make more sense to do it alphabetically?
2. I removed some of the rulers about whom we know nothing beyond their names; I figured they are accessible through the list.
3. "Personalities" section may be too comprehensive (if a thing can be said to be "too comprehensive" - see what you think.
4. Moved some of the tribes you mentioned to a section "client tribes and states" (added some too).

Let me know what you think and/or make what edits you feel appropriate. Briangotts (Talk) (Contrib) 17:13, 29 November 2006 (UTC) reply

Hi there. Would you mind having a quick glance at the Russian interwiki link on Descent from Genghis Khan? I though I'd ask you because you have edited that page extensively. It's been many years since I studied Russian at school, and I was never very good at it even then, but that link looks wrong to me. Thanks in advance. -- OpenToppedBus - Talk to the driver 12:54, 30 November 2006 (UTC) reply

The link leads to the Russian article about Genghizids. I had a glance at the page earlier this morning and left my comments in Russian Wikipedia. I believe, for the time being, this link will suffice. Thanks for letting me know, Ghirla ^-трёп- 13:34, 30 November 2006 (UTC) reply

Hi. I've been looking for mention of Ingria on the Carta Marina image (cool, by the way) you recently added to that article, but I can't seem to find it. Is that just me looking badly? the clues of Ingria's presence are too subtle? etc? Cheers, Deuar 14:09, 30 November 2006 (UTC) reply

It is not mentioned in the map. If you feel the image is redundant, you are free to remove it from the article. I was just unorphaning a lighter version of the image which is nominated on WP:FPC. -- Ghirla ^-трёп- 14:13, 30 November 2006 (UTC) reply

Thanks. I'll move it lower down then. Deuar 17:25, 30 November 2006 (UTC) reply

What do you think of this? Briangotts (Talk) (Contrib) 19:59, 30 November 2006 (UTC) reply

Ghirla don't be ridiculous with your "Google English", please! I live in the UK I KNOW what the LIVING language is! Of course it is possible to be as you said but it isn't wrong in my version either! "How come" is more COLLOQUIAL though, so I will leave your edition. Look at this Google search to further improve your English. Cheers, Internedko 10:32, 1 December 2006 (UTC) reply

Dear Inter, the English that is used in your school may not always be approriate for an encyclopaedia. Please consult WP:MoS. You may even want to start a separate wikipedia on some sort of ebonics. P.S. One of my favourite Stevie Wonder's tunes is How Come How Long. -- Ghirla ^-трёп- 10:35, 1 December 2006 (UTC) reply

Hi, Ghirla! I accidentally stumbled across this article of yours, and it made me curious why we have it at this title when the lead states that "Assumption monastery of St. Cyril" is the "proper translation in English". If it's the proper translation, shouldn't it also be the article's title? If it shouldn't be the title, then maybe the lead should be rephrased instead? Cheers,— Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • ( yo?); 16:37, 1 December 2006 (UTC) reply

I don't really see a problem here. For instance, the proper translation of Dublin is "black pool" but it does not mean we should rename the article on that account. -- Ghirla ^-трёп- 16:45, 1 December 2006 (UTC) reply

I guess I don't really understand what you mean by "proper translation". Dublin (or, rather, Dubh Linn)="black pond" would be a literal translation; "proper" only in the sense it is accurate. The monastery case isn't quite the same. The way the lead is constructed now, it reads that "Assumption monastery of St. Cyril" is the accurate ("proper") translation, but for some reason unknown the article's title is different. Which is why I am asking the question I am asking—should the article be renamed, or should the lead be rephrased? I am not itching to rename anything, I am just curious as to why the lead/title are constructed the way they are. Thanks.— Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • ( yo?); 17:09, 1 December 2006 (UTC) reply

Probably my poor command of English is to blame. -- Ghirla ^-трёп- 17:14, 1 December 2006 (UTC) reply

Or for crying out loud, do you have to be so bitter? I was just curious, is all.— Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • ( yo?); 17:19, 1 December 2006 (UTC) reply

Did you know? was updated. On 1 December, 2006, a fact from the article Abu Isa, which you recently nominated, 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.

-- howch e ng { chat} 19:13, 1 December 2006 (UTC) reply

Did you know? was updated. On 2 December, 2006, a fact from the article Alexander Kazhdan, which you recently nominated, 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.

-- tariqabjotu 02:25, 2 December 2006 (UTC) reply

If you have time, I'll appreciate your input on the article and other editors knowledgeable about Russia. Earlier today, I converted a new section of the Vladimir Putin aritlce, consisting of a long narrative of conspiracy theories, into a section on Putin's crime policies-- content I think actually helps make the article more encyclopedic. [9] But then I was reverted by editor accusing me of "suppressing documented information." [10] 172 | Talk 02:41, 2 December 2006 (UTC) reply

Hi, Andrey. I have wanted to request your help on this for a while now, but I kept forgetting. On Romanian Communist Party#Party Congresses is mentioned a locality named Gorikovo, which, from what data I was able to gather, is a suburb of Moscow (should it be "Gorykovo"?). You may help in "locating" the red link - should it redirect to Moscow? should it redirect to another neighborhood of Moscow (assuming it has changed names or merged)? should it have its own article? Many thanks. Dahn 13:18, 2 December 2006 (UTC) reply

I have about ten Romanian-language sources saying that it was in "Gorikovo, near Moscow", but it is entirely possible that they are all the victims of some bureaucratic error which nobody bothered to look into until now. Perhaps you could find a Russian-language source (it is the 5th Congress of the Romanian Communist Party, of December 1931). Something tells me that Russian historiography does not bother much with such events, but could you please run a brief Russian-language-based search for it and see if something relevant pops up just in case? Many thanks. Dahn 19:51, 4 December 2006 (UTC) reply

Thank you again. I'll leave it as such for now, given that I have no way of knowing whether the error should be replaced by "Moscow [not anywhere near Gorikovo]" or by "Gorikovo [not anywhere near Moscow]". Hopefully, time will solve it. Dahn 15:12, 5 December 2006 (UTC) reply

On 2 December, 2006, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Sainte-Geneviève-des-Bois Russian Cemetery, which you created. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the "Did you know?" talk page.

-- GeeJo ^(t)⁄ _(c) • 17:17, 2 December 2006 (UTC) reply

I've found a couple contradictory facts about this site. For one, it is listed as a Monument historique since 2001, a very strong protection. It is apparently Vera Kirilova Meshchersky who was most instrumental in founding the Russian retirement home (the French register does not mention Paget at all). I have also been unable to find any French references to attempts at closing the site. This page about the exhumation of Denikin and Illyin makes no reference whatsoever to a potential closing of the cemetery. Neither does this one that discusses exhumations in general and mention all three of them. In 2006, it is included into an invitation to tender by the city. As I can't read Russian, would you mind doublechecking these details? Circeus 20:41, 2 December 2006 (UTC) reply

Hi. I have a question about the attribution of the Giorgione self-portrait, which you reverted; I know that the attribution of his works is often tenuous, but has it been established definitively that this painting is not by his hand? I believe the museum credits the work to him. If so, then it seems that would be the official pronouncement. Thanks, and kudos for all your good work. JNW 21:12, 2 December 2006 (UTC) reply

He is mentioned at Byzantine navy, but that is all I can find on Wikipedia about him, though it does refer to the two most well-known facts about his life. I do not know enough about Leo to write his article above stub level, but I will look him up next time I am at my universty library (I have no good books of my own covering him). The problem with figures such as Leo is that they do not fit into a neat succession of sorts or have any official positions and therefore must appear as "stand-alone" articles. Srnec 22:04, 2 December 2006 (UTC) reply

Andrej, thanks for cleaning up typos. You can't imagine how many I caught as I worked! -- Wetman 00:28, 3 December 2006 (UTC) reply

On 3 December, 2006, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Rus'-Byzantine War (941), which you created. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the "Did you know?" talk page.

On 3 December, 2006, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Rus'-Byzantine Treaty (945), which you created. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the "Did you know?" talk page.

-- tariqabjotu 00:46, 3 December 2006 (UTC) reply

On December 4, 2006, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Rus'-Byzantine War (907), which you created. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the "Did you know?" talk page.

Blnguyen ( bananabucket) 01:02, 4 December 2006 (UTC) reply

Your Featured picture candidate has been promoted Your nomination for featured picture status, Image:Carta Marina.jpeg, gained a consensus of support, and has been promoted. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates. Raven4x4x 03:03, 3 December 2006 (UTC) reply

Congratulations, and thanks for nominating it. Raven4x4x 03:03, 3 December 2006 (UTC) reply

Hi Ghirla,

Just to let you know that the Featured Picture Image:Carta Marina.jpeg is due to make an appearance as Picture of the Day on March 26, 2007. If you get a chance, you can check and improve the caption at Template:POTD/2007-03-26. howcheng { chat} 17:41, 23 February 2007 (UTC) reply

Может быть, вам попадалась, а если нет, то очень рекомендую: Милов Л.В. "Великорусский пахарь и особенности российского исторического процесса" (в сети здесь http://bookz.ru/authors/milov-lv/milovlv01.html). Сам недавно набрел на этот великолепный академический труд, где основные особенности российской государственности (централизм, недоразвитие общественных институтов и т.д.) выводятся из условий климата, почв и т.п, в которых находился русский крестьянин. Не сочтите это за навязывание, просто в этой книге действительно очень обоснованно, с привлечением большого количества источников, выражен "детерминистский" взгляд на историю России. Ben-Velvel 13:49, 4 December 2006 (UTC) reply

Hi Ghirla, nice to hear from you. "Briefly", because I am having an extended break due to many real life issues that require my dedicated time. I still keep an eye on matters here though, especially my watchlist and larger issues such as the now current ArbCom elections. It's important to me to express my views on these matters, hence my brief return. Although I am not contributing much (or anything) at the moment I am still committed to WP and will return to productive status soon, most likely in the new year. Best wishes. -- Cactus.man ✍ 15:03, 4 December 2006 (UTC) reply

Thanks for that, see you in the new year ... or around the ArbCom pages :) -- Cactus.man ✍ 15:10, 4 December 2006 (UTC) reply

On 4 December, 2006, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Rus'-Byzantine War (1043), which you created. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the "Did you know?" talk page.

-- GeeJo ^(t)⁄ _(c) • 17:18, 4 December 2006 (UTC) reply

It's late in the week and I probably won't make the cut, but I thank you dearly for your vote in support of me. I genuinely am glad to have received it and I hope not to disappoint you should a future bid succeed. Biruitorul 18:47, 4 December 2006 (UTC) reply

Thank you for your reply. True enough, regarding the overzealousness of museum attributions, as well as the uncertainty of cataloguing Venetian paintings of the period. Ever since I can remember, the literature on art (not that it isn't always fluid and changing) has attributed this painting to Giorgione, and if the picture is to be deleted, then it ought to be clear that the current scholarly shift is against attribution. I have not yet found anything definitive on the internet, so I was hoping you had some documentation-- I am a figurative painter, and heaven knows there are many master attributions with which I take issue. I gather that you are passionate and knowledgable about painting, and am interested in hearing your further thoughts. JNW 23:32, 4 December 2006 (UTC) reply

Wikipedia isn't Animal Farm - no editor is "superior" or "more equal" than others. I think we have it all formally in one of the ten wikicommandments (which are fully editable by the way :)) -- Tawker 00:47, 5 December 2006 (UTC) reply

Remember a while ago I posted a note on how to make the article fuller, if I do one day complete what I am trying then it will be an article that will take a megabyte on wiki space. One of my focal points, if you did not guess is 20th century architecture, and at present I warn you if you thought that it looks extensive right now, then it will treble when I am through with it. Which is why I think there should come a point for us to break it off into a separate article. And so on with all time periods, which should in the end total at least 13 individual articles. And Russian Architecture will simply become a general page. Of course I'll appreciate your help, but I strongly recommend you get your hands on one of these, trust me EXCELLENT resource, not just for architecture, but for Russian sculpture, painting, and so on. -- Kuban Cossack 01:30, 5 December 2006 (UTC) reply

Ghirlandajo, I have created a "locator map" for the Golden Horde. This map shows domains of the Golden Horde in 1389 before the Tokhtamysh-Timur war, with modern international boundaries in light brown. The Principality of Moscow is shown as a dependency, in light yellow. I am a bit displeased with how difficult it is to tell the rivers and international boundaries apart, even at 400px but on the whole it turned out nicely.

I would, of course, be very interested in your comments as well. I aim to please. MapMaster 01:58, 5 December 2006 (UTC) reply

Updated the map. Check it out and let me know what you think, and esp. if any other archaeological cites should be added. Briangotts (Talk) (Contrib) 03:04, 5 December 2006 (UTC) reply

Hi, Brian. I am pleased with the newest edition of your map. I have some comments, but they are not essential:

*Are you sure that early Pskov may be qualified as a Scandinavian settlement (it is red in your map)? At least nearby Izborsk was a tribal centre of the Krivichs, with no traces of a Varangian presence (although it was burned to the ground simultaneously with the settlements of the Rus' Khaganate, towards the end of the ninth century).

*Per Tatiana Jackson and the Machinskys, Alaborg was situated on the Syas River rapids, immediately east of Ladoga. The Syas River flows from Lake Ladoga southward, in parallel to the Volkhov. There is a minority opinion that Alaborg was pre-historic Olonets but it does not enjoy much support.

*I don't understand why you persist in spelling Rostov as Rostofa. This is a ridiculously distorted Slavic name, used in several quite late Scandinavian sources. The original Norse name for Sarskoe Gorodishche is not known. I also don't understand the question mark and the frame at this point of the map. -- Ghirla ^-трёп- 14:39, 5 December 2006 (UTC) reply

1. Re:Pskov: I based this on the fact that Olga of Kiev's family were supposed to be prominent Varangians who settled there. Given that she married Igor in the early 900's, it's not unreasonable to classify Pskov as the situs of a Varangian settlement at least in tradition. I don't know how the archaeology measures up. Christian definitely identifies it as a Rus Khaganate site, as do (I believe) Franklin and Shepard.

2. Re:Izborsk being burned with the Rus' Khaganate sites; I imagine that the line between Slav and Varangian was not particularly clear-cut in many areas and that there were "Viking-ized" Slavic ruling classes in some regions just as there were Slavicized Viking rulers in others. It was probably more of a spectrum than a clear cut "I am Viking, you are Slav" dichotomy. Not that that affects the map, it's just a thought.

3. Rostofa- this is clearly what Norsemen called the town in later times. Sarskoe G. is a more modern designation so I don't see why it would be a more appropriate name. However, I will add a note to the map description discussing the issue since you think it is important.

-- Briangotts (Talk) (Contrib)

Incidentally, my main concern making the map was that it would spark arguments between Serb and Croat activists about whose people were or weren't in the Balkans at what time, which argument dominated De Administrado Imperio for a long time. Briangotts (Talk) (Contrib) 15:28, 5 December 2006 (UTC) reply

Anything else you would like to add before it goes up for FA? Briangotts (Talk) (Contrib) 19:02, 5 December 2006 (UTC) reply

I appreciate your support, but have decided to withdraw from consideration for a position as an arbitrator. The community has overwhelming found me to be too controversial to hold that position. Thanks again for your support.-- MONGO 19:54, 5 December 2006 (UTC) reply

What would you think of creating a separate series of articles, including a template, on the history of the early Rus (up to Vladimir)? Beit Or 20:37, 5 December 2006 (UTC) reply

If there were a way to have it replace the numerous country templates in Kievan Rus' (Belarus, Ukraine, Russia, et al) so much the better. Briangotts (Talk) (Contrib) 20:43, 5 December 2006 (UTC) reply

You may know that I supported both Paul August and Geogre, just in the last few days, therefore I'm hoping you'll take this better from me than from someone else. I write this with the deepest respect for your excellent article contributions.

Cyde has the right to ask civil questions of candidates, even if they are inflammatory, even if they incite candidates to criticise each other. In fact, how a candidate reacts to an inflammatory question is an important judge of their suitability - they'll get much more heat than that as an arbcom member. Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee Elections December 2006/Candidate statements/Questions for Paul August#Another question from Cyde Weys is a tough, but perfectly legitimate question. Please don't remove it again. AnonEMouse ^(squeak) 21:39, 5 December 2006 (UTC) reply

From history of article Muhajir (Caucasus): 10:12, 5 December 2006 Ghirlandajo (Talk | contribs) m (rmv trolling).

I would like to humbly request an apology. Mukadderat 01:29, 6 December 2006 (UTC) reply

I have reverted back to my last edit and posted the rationale on the article's talk page. -- Saaber 02:02, 6 December 2006 (UTC) reply

FYI- looks like a new Wikiproject you might be interested in. Briangotts (Talk) (Contrib) 02:32, 6 December 2006 (UTC) reply

Good morning from Athens, first of all! Please check my comments in Joyce's FAR. I just tagged assessments and quotations that need citations. I actually do not like ^{citation needed}, but we are asked to do that when we argue for lack of references in FAR(C). Therefore, what I did is absolutely fair, and in accord with what FAR and FARC demands from reviewers who have objections, and think that an article is under-cited. Regards!-- Yannismarou 08:57, 6 December 2006 (UTC) reply

Oh! I forgot to mention that (sorry for coming bACK)! As a principle in FAC and FAR(C), it is the editor of the article who is obliged to find a missing citation; not the reviewer. The reviewer points out the deficiencies and the editor fixes them. My regards once again!-- Yannismarou 09:03, 6 December 2006 (UTC) reply

In general, you are right, but this is a particular case. This is an article nominated in FARC, and I see that certain editors are working on it. In order to fix it, we must point out what we regard as deficiencies. So, the tags are actually helpful for the editors (not the initial ones, but the currect editors who try to keep it FA). If I do not convince the reviewers and the article remains FA without further improvements, the tags will be removed. The best scenario is that Paul August, Yomangani or somebody else will add the missing (according to me!) citations. The bad scenario is that the article will lose its star, and the tags will remain, until somebody adds the citations. This is unfortunate, but If we want to keep a high level here, I think that we have no other choice than to act like that. Once again I stress that this is my personal opinion, which will be judged.-- Yannismarou 09:19, 6 December 2006 (UTC) reply

Well, it is not a matter of numbers, but of substance. Is the article properly cited? This is the main issue for me. Now, if you honestly want my opinion, 43 inline citations for such a long article are not adequate. They should be 60+. But again, this is my personal belief. I also noticed some kind of irony or fustration in your last remarks. If I'm wrong, I apologize, but, If I'm right, I really do not understand why. I don't think I did something wrong, and I do not understand why I should conduct research, while other editors are currently working on the article. And, as a matter of fact, some recently promoted FACs have indeed hundreds of citations. This is not something wrong (for me again). My further remarks concerning the artilcle, including my assessment of your latest contributions you mentioned, will be edited in Wikipedia:Featured article review/James Joyce and not here.-- Yannismarou 10:14, 6 December 2006 (UTC) reply

Looks good to me, any ideas for a nom? GeeJo ^(t)⁄ _(c) • 12:14, 6 December 2006 (UTC) reply

Feel free to add this request, I'm sure this can only end up with the disclosure of what your group has been doing, i.e trying to put the unfounded pro-Soviet POV into the article concerned Constanz - Talk 16:13, 6 December 2006 (UTC) reply

Your input would be appreciated at this Request for Comments. Kelly Martin ( talk) 17:07, 6 December 2006 (UTC) reply

Kelly, I already commented there an hour ago! -- Ghirla ^-трёп- 17:18, 6 December 2006 (UTC) reply

My apologies for the redundant notification, and thank you for your participation. Kelly Martin ( talk) 17:51, 6 December 2006 (UTC) reply

Hello Ghirla. I noticed that you'd opened an RfC about Piotrus. You [plural: you, Piotrus, Halibutt ...] have been arguing since Halibutt's RfA, if not earlier, which means that this has been going on for over a year now. Is opening an RfC on Piotrus really going to achieve anything useful? I can't see it myself. Do you have any ideas, other than arbitration, on how to end the arguments ? I think you are one of the greatest article writers wikipedia has, but edit summaries like "removed trolling to talk" aren't very helpful: "remove Ideogram's comments to talk" would have done just as well. If you don't feel able to write something that won't be complained of, why write anything at all in the edit summary ? Nil carborundum. Very best wishes, Angus McLellan (Talk) 23:05, 6 December 2006 (UTC) reply

Angus, I have been exceedingly good at detecting trolls this year and even received a unique anti-troll barnstar in the process :) If you dispute my assumption that Ideogram is a troll you may as well post similar notices to User:SlimVirgin, to User:Nandesuka, and to scores others who share my opinion. -- Ghirla ^-трёп- 09:24, 7 December 2006 (UTC) reply

The thing about trolling is that it aims to get a response. Do not feed the trolls is good advice. "Removed trolling" is the sort of thing trolls like to see ... Cheers! Angus McLellan (Talk) 09:43, 7 December 2006 (UTC) reply

Yes, Baroque is the penultimate development of what began with Brunelleschi. I would have thought it fairly obvious. Even Roman architecture reached a "Baroque" stage. The great Sir Banister doesn't use the word Mannnerist. It's referred to in B.F. (The Architect's Bible) as Proto-Baroque. But don't worry, I am not going to write about it on the Renaissance page.. The direction to the main article is sufficient.

Now, concerning that rather messy little gallery of pictures, which took me hours to source, as they were not all together under Renaissance (or anything else). The reason they were garnered and dump there was for inclusion in the text. I wrote that piece of information on the history page, but I guess you didn't actually look at the history page.

The reason for the pics is because when one writes, one needs to know what pics are available. Ther's no point in writing about Santo Spirito, for example, if the only decent picture is of Lorenzo's. Actually there were pics of both. Now what I need is a key Alberti work- Sant'Andreas, because Santa Maria Novella is an eclectic half-Gothic compromise.

As for the length of time you have been locked out..... well, yes.... the article, which is a key article in the study of the Arts, was sadly lacking. It will take a while to improve it. At least another 9 hours, I should think! Now I'm having a coffee break. Seeya later!

-- Amandajm 09:55, 7 December 2006 (UTC) reply

Re my work on Brunelleschi and Alberti

Hi Ghirlandaio!

This is what I have just sent to Giano.

Of course I've checked the history file. I rewrote the intro myself, months ago. It hhad been changged since then but the new information was not well integrated, which is what I have donne. I don't go around removing useful, pertinent information. What I do is edit it in. You may not immediately see what you have previously addded, but it will be there somewhere.

I have been reading about, writing about and teaching Art History for the past 50 years. There might be more competent editors in this field than I am, working on that page, bbut i hhave seen no signs of them! I am currently sitting at my computer surrounded by two thousand books, of which the majority of them are Art History. I am using seven of them to write ediit the current page. The previous editors have cited only one very general encyclopedia. I have that one to hand as well. How much expertise do you want?

-- Amandajm 14:20, 7 December 2006 (UTC) reply

Ghirl, can I suggest that you read what is written,, before you delete things. I mean really read it. Don't you get some faint hint that i might know something about my subject annd that the reason I am doing so much work is because i consider that there was a serious lack of information? How ignorant do you think I am? I check, cross-check and look up everything I write. My edits are corrected and refined continually, by me! -- Amandajm 14:20, 7 December 2006 (UTC) reply

Yes. I'll add the references related my edit (i haven't finished yet). Actually, after your message, i was also confused a little bit whether the Turkish sources really differs. After spending some time in the library, i have the answer: The terminology in the Turkish and English sources is the same. The only difference is some Turkish sources uses "Gök"/"Kök" (eastern) not blue ("mavi" in Turkish) as in English sources. White (western) is the same "Ak" (white). In addition, I checked Encyclopedia Americana article which is written by Edward L. Keenan from Harvard University. There Blue is used for Eastern and White for Western Hordes. However, there was a difference between Russian chronicles and islamic souces (Arabian and Egyptian) (V.G. Tiesenhausen's work in 1884). This difference is explained in B.D. Grekov and A.Y.Yakubovski's state-of-art book "The Golden Horde and its Downfall". The major work were done by Russian scientists (A.Romaskevic and S.L. Volin 1941, B.D. Grekov and A.Y.Yakubovski 1950, G.Vernadsky 1953), for this reason, i had wrote the note as Russian terminology. On the other hand, the terminology used in wiki-article is not correct. This change was made here. I had not recognized this while editing, cause i was concentrated on other parts of the article. I had assumed that this was due to Russian to Turkish translation (Gök-Mavi, Ak). Now, i can safely say that the wiki-article terminology does not reflect the common usage. I'll do the changes. I'm removing the note also which is incorrect. There is no difference. I'll also correct the related information for the Blue Horde (eastern) and White Horde (western) articles, too. Actually, maybe it's better to rename these articles as Eastern and Western Hordes, which totally removes the terminology disambiguity (actually there is no such difference between Turkish, Russian and English sources). Regards. E104421 15:39, 7 December 2006 (UTC) reply

• Alright, do not bother. What he's trying to do is historical revisionism. Have you ever checked the removed image's note in the white horde article which is "Tatar map of the Golden Horde, showing the White and Blue Hordes according to Turkish historical nomenclature". Why Turkish nomenclature is kept in the picture? The answer is simple cause the map is taken from a site which uses the common terminology which is the same as Russian and English references and this person could not changed this in the picture. That's it. Anyways, i shall correct the articles. E104421 16:13, 7 December 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Do you know how to move/rename the pages? E104421 16:17, 7 December 2006 (UTC) reply
    • Hi, Firstly, better to move the current blue horde to White (Golden) Horde together with its discussion page. Then move/rename the current white horde as blue horde with its talk page. At the end, redirect the white (golden) horde to White Horde with its talk page. This person's log page reveals everything. I shall greatly appreciate, i you help me to do this, cause i've never done this before. Thanks in advance. E104421 16:55, 7 December 2006 (UTC) reply
      • Ok, i already posted an explanation to the talk pages. However, i'm wondering wheter this person applied to WP:RM or not. Probably not! E104421 17:09, 7 December 2006 (UTC) reply
        • One more note, this is a world-wide accepted terminology, the same usage in Russian, Turkish and English sources, why voting?
          • This person changed all the names in related articles without any consensus, ignoring all the major works. Anyways, we'll stop this revisionism. Tomorrow, i'll provide more references. Thank you very much for your efforts. E104421 17:30, 7 December 2006 (UTC) reply
            • Yes, you're right. I mixed the links. As i said before i never did any rename/move. Alright, i'll try to change the texts, which is more simple in this case. The only thing left is to delete White (Golden) Horde, cause there is no White (Golden) Horde but Blue (Golden) Horde. If you agree, i can start editing the articles. E104421 18:02, 7 December 2006 (UTC) reply

Yes, you certainly right. As i wrote above, we should keep White Horde (Orda) of course. We should delete " White (Golden) Horde", cause there is no "White "(Golden)" Horde", the Blue Horde (Batu) turns out to be Golden Horde later on. Cheers! E104421 18:23, 7 December 2006 (UTC) reply

• Maybe better to delete the White (Golden) Horde. The Golden in paranthesis is confusing, cause there is only White Horde. E104421 18:57, 7 December 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Alright, thanks. Kind regards! E104421 19:00, 7 December 2006 (UTC) reply

I did the changes in the Blue Horde and the White Horde articles. We can continue expanding the articles now. Cheers! E104421 21:13, 7 December 2006 (UTC) reply

I removed the comment "with about one hundredth of the éclat that you did" because it is clearly one user's subjective evaluation of Kelly's performance vs. ALoan's. It contributed nothing to the commentary except to add heat where light would have done. The page it was removed from is not a page for subjectively evaluating a person. It's a candidate question page, and nothing more. I'm not going to revert you. I do feel the comment should be removed. I also wanted to explain why, precisely, it was removed. -- Durin 18:21, 7 December 2006 (UTC) reply

I also explained my actions on your talk page that very moment. The whole concept of civility as applied to the respected members of the community is "subjective and polarizing". What appears incivil to you, may appear perfectly civil to me, and vice vera. Best, Ghirla ^-трёп- 18:24, 7 December 2006 (UTC) reply

• Except the page in question is not a page for evaluating a person. It's a page for positing questions to the candidate and for the candidate to respond. Even strictly objective assessments like "This candidate has made 1,423 deletions in the last 12 months" are out of place on this page. Any person would be well within bounds to entirely remove the comment and move it to Kelly's talk page. -- Durin 18:27, 7 December 2006 (UTC) reply

Ghirla:

It will be a little longer before I can revise the Battle of Krasnoi article sufficiently to get a favorable peer review and a maximum rating for it. There's still work to be done. In the meantime, however, I would like to get it upgraded to at least a "B". Right now, it's still rated as a "stub", and that's not appropriate.

Who can upgrade the article to at least a "B" for me? Thanks.

Kenmore 04:01, 8 December 2006 (UTC)kenmore reply

All over the centuries gelugpa school has been major school in Russia and ofcourse the first one but someone has wrote such a falsification hier . Why?-- VanemTao 04:42, 8 December 2006 (UTC) reply

No, I can't. -- Attilios 12:14, 8 December 2006 (UTC) reply

I'm Madhyako, do you know me?? -- M adhyako Pradesh lo 12:59, 8 December 2006 (UTC) reply

Bonny, get you a new life and stop stalking me. -- Ghirla ^-трёп- 13:00, 8 December 2006 (UTC) reply

• Sorry, I have very little time to edit Wikipedia nowadays and I had to take drastic action to cut down on my editting habits. An alcohoolic may move to a total-prohibition country. A car speeder might move to an uninhabited island. A Wikipedia administrator might request his sysop bit be removed. :-) Anyway, I have reported this guy at WP:ANI so we will probably see a block pretty soon if it all checks out. Sjakkalle (Check!) 13:12, 8 December 2006 (UTC) reply

Could you help me identify the Battle of Bravalla (770) that is mentioned in my article about Bravlin? It is supposed to be "one of the great battles of early Scandinavian history, a contest that was long remembered by the skalds and chroniclers" and "affected very considerably the distribution of the balance of power in Scandinavia" (Thomas Kedrick's A History of the Vikings). Nevertheless, I can't find anything about in Wikipedia. Thanks, Ghirla ^-трёп-

It has an article in WP: Battle of the Brávellir (I made a redirect for you). Cheers,-- Berig 13:02, 8 December 2006 (UTC) reply

Ok, took care of it; thanks for letting me know. Kirill Lokshin 13:29, 8 December 2006 (UTC) reply

I wasn't aware I that I had any "prejudice towards Kenmore"; my comments are based on my evaluation of the article vis-à-vis the standards of writing expected at the FA level. (I've gotten similarly harsh criticism in the past, for what it's worth; and I think it's more useful to hear such comments now than to have them sprung on you unexpectedly at FAC.) Kirill Lokshin 14:37, 8 December 2006 (UTC) reply

I'm sorry. I was interuptted before I could type the suggestions. The article itself is severely lacking references in certain sections, and thus fails the good article criteria. If you added more sources to it, I would pass this. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Diez2 ( talk • contribs) 18:22, 8 December 2006 (UTC). reply

since I see you have deleted my comments apparently because I dared to write in Russian, let me state my position again in english. (Let me also state that when I address someone in their own language, it is meant as a friendly and diplomatic gesture.) I am not a Russophobe nor do I belong to any sort of anti-Ghirla cabal. ( WP:CABAL) I am simply concerned by what I perceive as frequent belligerence and incivility on your part. Also, when I looked at the examples you provided on Piotrus's RfC, I found most of them less than convincing. I know Piotrus has his faults and has made his own mistakes, we all are human. But from my perspective, which is in fact fairly neutral, I decided to cautiously support Piotrus on that particular RfC. Please remember, there is no cabal, and if someone disagrees with you personally it does not mean one is Russophobic. K. Lástocska 18:25, 8 December 2006 (UTC) reply

Hi,

Just asking if you would be able to identify the Russian princes mentioned by the chronicles in the "Conflicts with Novgorod" section of Prehistoric Finnish wars, thanks. -- Drieakko 19:41, 8 December 2006 (UTC) reply

That was quick and accurate, as always. Many thanks. -- Drieakko 20:04, 8 December 2006 (UTC) reply

Ghirla:

A misconception widely circulated in the West is that the Turks defeated the Russians at Silistria in 1854. Most encyclopedia articles on Prince Ivan Paskevich describe him as having been defeated at Silistria. Likewise, the Turkish commander Omar Pasha is credited with a victory.

Of course the truth is quite different: the Turkish garrison was on the verge of collapsing when Nicholas I, fearing Austrian military intervention in the war, ordered the Army of the Danube to recross the Danube, then return to Russia.

Hence, I have amended the Wikipedia article on Paskevich so that it more accurately depicts the Silistria episode. I have done the same in the Gorchakov article, as Gorchakov succeeded Paskevich when the latter was wounded.

I did not amend the misinformation in the Omar Pasha article because I don't want to offend the author. But I did explain the truth on the article's discussion page: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Omar_Pasha

Kenmore 06:27, 9 December 2006 (UTC)kenmore reply

You guessed right. Alex already blocked him. Khoi khoi 08:48, 9 December 2006 (UTC) reply

Thank you so much for nominating the page Kalos inscription for DYK. I'm kinda buzzed something I helped write should make it onto the front page! Twospoonfuls 09:25, 9 December 2006 (UTC) reply

Hi Andrey! I'm no expert when it comes to art, but why do I have a strong feeling that the picture of Yermak (see article) is really a picture of some conquistador? I mean, I look at the helmet (looks like it, at least), the armor (looks like it, at least), the pike etc. and can't feel at ease. Do you know anything about this image? Thanx! KNewman 16:31, 9 December 2006 (UTC) reply

Sorry, that came out the wrong way. I meant to say "among Russian editors in general, there have been Molobos". I did not mean to implicate you in any way. In case you were aware of that, and you were asking me to be explicit about those editors: I can recall pages on my watchlist related to Bessarabia suddenly filling up with theories about Romanian imperialists etc, and then abandoned (of course, I can name about 100 Romanian editors who engage in the same solicist game). I'll rephrase accordingly, if you feel I should. Sorry again. Dahn 17:37, 9 December 2006 (UTC) reply

I cannot vouch for Russian editors in general, but you, Irpen, and others have certainly been examples of proper wikipedia behavior as far as I can see; just as well, despite the commitment of excellent Romanian admins, the Ro community has provided the worst possible trolls and vandals, and it is a shame hat some editors still pose questions about whether their banning was justified... (I don't know if you guys are as close to the top standards as you say, but, unfortunately, we tend to sink as low as it gets). Dahn 18:08, 9 December 2006 (UTC) reply

Thank you for your reply. Was the massacre of Praga not real? Could you give an example of a Polish loss that Piuotrus claims happened due to Western betrayal but didn't? Let's try to avoid generalities. As I said on the RfC talk page, abuse happened on both sides, though I grant that there is a difference because you are not an admin. There is real cause for complaint, which is why a Lithuanian joined in, but you too are not totally innocent. But rather than looking for Piotrus to be punished (if that's the case), I think it would be more productive for you two to reconcile and move forward in peace. Is that too much to ask? Biruitorul 18:09, 9 December 2006 (UTC) reply

I see your point, but you can at least be content knowing that others now know what you want us to know. Even if people won't openly decry him, you've put out the record - or at least your side of the story - and users can form their own private judgments about the matter. Biruitorul 18:19, 9 December 2006 (UTC) reply

Interesting. I didn't know that. If you decide to reopen the discussion (which, after all, was at its peak exactly a year ago), I will lend you my support. Biruitorul 23:59, 9 December 2006 (UTC) reply

Hi Ghirla! I wonder if some references in Russian are available for Gerasim Lebedev. I found one by google, and the translated version was a bulleted short bio of the person. Also, could you please add his name in Russian script in the article? Regards.-- Dwaipayan ( talk) 04:25, 10 December 2006 (UTC) reply

Some very well spoken thoughts on your user page. Well done. If you're keen on harassment, have a look at my user talk page and what's been going on regarding my involvement in the fair use vs. GFDL only debate. If you have any pointers or suggestions as to what can be done to stop the targeting I've been under, let me know. Thanks, and keep up the good work. Tvccs 07:23, 10 December 2006 (UTC) reply

On 10 December, 2006, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Novye Duboviki, which you created. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the "Did you know?" talk page.

• As always, thanks Ghirla -- Samir धर्म 07:37, 10 December 2006 (UTC) reply

What about Christianization of the Rus' (9th century) ? Briangotts (Talk) (Contrib) 23:12, 10 December 2006 (UTC) reply

Thought you might be interested in this FAC. Briangotts (Talk) (Contrib) 18:53, 11 December 2006 (UTC) reply

Per your comments, note please that many Khazar burial sites, both pre- and post- conversion, have been excavated. See Brook, 61-65; Brook cites to numerous works by Pletnyeva, Klyutchnikov, and others. The similarities to Rus' cites have been noted by more than one scholar. Briangotts (Talk) (Contrib) 02:57, 12 December 2006 (UTC) reply

On December 12, 2006, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Boris Grekov, which you created. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the "Did you know?" talk page.

Thanks again Ghirla - Odengatan was the kindly nominator. Thanks, Blnguyen ( bananabucket) 04:49, 12 December 2006 (UTC) reply

Being aware of the heated discussion about the terms Kievan Rus v. Kiev Rus, I changed the book titles on Boris Grekov to Kiev Rus (1939) (tr. Y. Sdobnikov, 1959) and Culture of Kiev Rus (tr. Pauline Rose, 1947). Since, these are actually the titles of the English translations, I hope you don't mind. Regards --- Odengatan 11:32, 12 December 2006 (UTC) reply

[11] I wish people would say that more often! Samsara ( talk •  contribs) 15:18, 12 December 2006 (UTC) reply

Did you know? was updated. On 12 December, 2006, a fact from the article Battle of Golymin, which you recently nominated, 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.

-- GeeJo ^(t)⁄ _(c) • 18:57, 12 December 2006 (UTC) reply

On 13 December, 2006, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Bravlin, which you created. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the "Did you know?" talk page.

-- Another solid article. Good work :) GeeJo ^(t)⁄ _(c) • 01:02, 13 December 2006 (UTC) reply

FYI

You left a gallery of good pics of Renaissance architecture in assorted countries on the discussion page. I have used four of these pictures in creating a new page Renaissance architecture in Eastern Europe. I think it should be expanded and divided into articles about seperate regions. There is an article Polish Renaissance which I will link.

Unfortunately, I don't know much about Eastern Europe at all!

Bye for now, -- Amandajm 03:32, 13 December 2006 (UTC) reply

Your Featured picture candidate has been promoted Your nomination for featured picture status, Image:Stpeteskyline.png, gained a consensus of support, and has been promoted. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates. Raven4x4x 07:44, 13 December 2006 (UTC) reply

Congratulations, and thanks for nominating it. Raven4x4x 07:44, 13 December 2006 (UTC) reply

On 13 December, 2006, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Christianization of the Rus' Khaganate, which you created. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the "Did you know?" talk page.

-- GeeJo ^(t)⁄ _(c) • 19:25, 13 December 2006 (UTC) reply

Done. And I needed an urgent response. Image talk page responses tend to lag. -- Ineffable3000 13:23, 14 December 2006 (UTC) reply

Replied on my talk page. Shortly: I am in no way claiming that the Battle of the Neva did not take place. -- Drieakko 16:23, 14 December 2006 (UTC) reply

Hi, I posted some comments about holy cities. fyi. I would like to know your thoughts. I am reluctant to have it deleted but I will not object if it is finally deleted. Although I think the article can be improved by cutting down the list instead of expanding it. I agree that some of them are more of pilgrimage sites than bona fide holy cities. Ok. Take care and see the comments, thanks. Dr mindbender 22:38, 12 December 2006 (UTC) reply

Thanks for your note--I might otherwise not have followed up. BTW, just so I know, do you consider that Moscow was ever a holy city historically? Do you think there is a substandial body of opinion that does so consider it? I know relatively little about Eastern Christianity, but more the medieval West. DGG 18:37, 14 December 2006 (UTC) reply

I don't consider Moscow a holy city, though some Muscovites may beg to differ. It is the same with almost every other item in the list. -- Ghirla ^-трёп- 18:40, 14 December 2006 (UTC) reply

Reply at Odengatan Talk -- Odengatan 20:41, 14 December 2006 (UTC) reply

Please see Wikipedia talk:Requests for comment/Piotrus#Questions. Thanks, Guy ( Help!) 21:12, 14 December 2006 (UTC) reply

The RfC is a good step in the right direction. I think JzG and Elaragirl make some very good points. In the interest of resolving this long-standing acrimony, could you please try to avoid comments like these? [12] I'm sure that if both of you would try to avoid commenting on each others every action, it would go a long way toward helping the situation calm down. Shell ^babelfish 01:25, 15 December 2006 (UTC) reply

The guy seems to be on the endless WP:POINT crusade against everything I edit. However far from Poland a topic may be, he still follows my edits, surrounded by clouds of meatpuppets recruited on the Poland-related noticeboard. You may check the following comment to see how disruptive this may be. I suppose his aim is to oust me from editing Wikipedia, although (unlike his friend Halibutt) he will never admit it. -- Ghirla ^-трёп- 07:55, 15 December 2006 (UTC) reply

About this? Briangotts (Talk) (Contrib) 03:57, 15 December 2006 (UTC) reply

After years of suffering his attacks, I may say that the most effective method is to sprinkle citation tags liberally on History of Solidarity. Only when his WP:POINT agenda is brought to light, the level of his aggresiveness may be curbed. -- Ghirla ^-трёп- 09:22, 15 December 2006 (UTC) reply

Incidentally, I found this admission funny and refreshing. Briangotts (Talk) (Contrib) 04:00, 15 December 2006 (UTC) reply

I've left a message on your meta talkpage. Please read if you have the time. ~Kylu ( u| t) 05:19, 15 December 2006 (UTC) reply

Do you live close to Yaroslavl Demidov State University in Yaroslavl? If you do, can you please take some pictures for the article? -- Ineffable3000 06:02, 15 December 2006 (UTC) reply

That's cool. I will support you. -- Ineffable3000 08:02, 15 December 2006 (UTC) reply

To counter spurious time consuming AfD's, I've had a stab at a draft policy for architectural notability here. I've attempted to restrict the scope of the proposal to actual 'works of architecture', architects, building technology and legal aspects of the profession. Buildings and structures notability enmasse should probably be a separate enterprise, or at least a later one. I need to give some thought to threshold notability and have shied away from minor works by major architects, because buildings are not like music or literature, they cannot generally be ignored by the public and play some kind of role in most built environments, so I argue the impact is beyond just they're effectiveness or otherwise as a work of art. Comments (by anyone) gladly received. Cheers -- Mcginnly | Natter 21:37, 15 December 2006 (UTC) reply

Dear Ghirla, would you consider solving our problems through a mediation? RfC is always 'many equal voices', mediation has the advantage of only one decisive voice. I am tired of this conflict, we need to deal with it decisivly one way or another.--  _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus |  talk}  00:14, 16 December 2006 (UTC) reply

Piotr, I think we may sooner work out some sort of solution on the RfC talk page. I have seen there some suggestions worth considering. I am sort of sceptical towards mediations, and I know that most arbitrators share this attitude. There were two attempts to drag me into this in the past, one by User:Bonaparte and another by User:Ideogram. Both turned out to be... well you know who they are, so I don't expect much from new experience of the sort. -- Ghirla ^-трёп- 19:25, 16 December 2006 (UTC) reply

Thank you very much for your editing (and renaming) of the article. It is so much better now ! Incidently, you mentioned in the portal page that you requested this article some time ago. Where would it be possible to see a list of such requests ? Thanks again, Wikiolap 04:28, 16 December 2006 (UTC) reply

Thanks for your reply on my talk page. Even though I thought you would be one of the best people to ask about this, I didn't ask you directly on your user page because I knew you might regard it as spamming. Instead I asked at the Russian portal and the pages of some people who had commented on the particular article page (the reason I asked around was because I thought I wasn't going to get a reply). By the way, I don't think it's original research to ask people for help in explaining information found or quoted in secondary sources; I expect to ask for more such help in future. qp10qp 21:00, 16 December 2006 (UTC) reply

Thanks and congrats to you too! Re: the Dorostolon picture, who took the picture? was the painting behind glass? Briangotts (Talk) (Contrib) 22:08, 16 December 2006 (UTC) reply

Hi! Please confirm your identity with the user m:User:Ghirlandajo on Meta. We need it to count authenticated votes on m:Proposals for closing projects/Closure of Siberian Wikipedia. I didn't find any link from here to your meta page. Thank you in advance. -- Yms 09:57, 17 December 2006 (UTC) reply

Confirmed. -- Ghirla ^-трёп- 14:47, 17 December 2006 (UTC) reply

Dear Ghirla. I have written a very peculiar Varangian named Solovey. Perhaps you have information to about him.-- Berig 16:04, 17 December 2006 (UTC) reply

I started St Michael's Castle after having written a few words about the First Engineer Bridge. Then, I recalled that back in June, you said that you were actually working on St. Michael's Castle. I'm really sorry for that. Anyway, you're most welcome, to improve and change the Castle stub as much as you'd like... Odengatan 16:47, 17 December 2006 (UTC) reply

Your article is not a stub, at least, and it may be DYKable. But, to be honest, I stopped contributing on Russian architecture topics, after I saw people post such miserable stubs as Saint Petersburg Great Choral Synagogue, Yelagin Palace or Yaroslavskiy Rail Terminal. What's the point of nurturing an article, preparing sketches and sources for it, carefully leaving red links where needed, when somebody would butt in and post a few disjointed lines instead? If they think their entries are so helpful to our readers, let them complete the articles they started as they wish. -- Ghirla ^-трёп- 18:33, 19 December 2006 (UTC) reply

Problems with an obstinate user. You have a good "Bonny radar", says Mikka. Is this him? Or another permabanned user, User:Greier? - Mauco 21:36, 17 December 2006 (UTC) reply

Hi. We had a dispute with certain Iranian users, some of whom doubt that the name Azerbaijan was applied north of Araks. It has a lot to do with the fears that independence of Azerbaijan republic may affect the people in Iranian Azerbaijan. Some of them go as far as to claim that Azeris in the North and South are not the same ethnicity. In any case, I think it is OK to use the expression “territory of present day Azerbaijan” to make everyone happy. Regards, Grandmaster 12:33, 18 December 2006 (UTC) reply

Я ответил у себя. -- Kaganer 13:05, 18 December 2006 (UTC) reply

You're wrong, by the way, although your remark gives me pleasure. I do not "emphatically defend" IRC as you suggest, nor will you be able to substantiate that statement with actual evidence. What I have done is to defend the right of administrators, like any other user, to discuss matters privately should they wish. In cases of libel, defamation, and threats to one's person (and I've received plenty of the last), the use of a non-public means of communication isn't just sensible, it's practically required. As I said on my own talk page, if you've got proof of me saying horrible things in private that I wouldn't say publicly, I would welcome the bringing forth of such proof so that my conduct can be judged on the evidence, not accusations. I will continue to characterize as "disgusting" gross insinuations of character made against an entire class of users without evidence. And if IRC is so evil, you'd best tell your friends not to use it either. Mackensen (talk) 19:04, 18 December 2006 (UTC) reply

For your support in the matter of my recent block. It was lifted early, albeit grudgingly. Briangotts (Talk) (Contrib) 00:35, 19 December 2006 (UTC) reply

Ghirlandajo, hello, I changed from "Sredny Stog" to "Sridny Stog" because Sridny Stog is the Ukrainian name, because its location now is in the Ukraine, it is more appropriate to use the native name instead of the previous dominating power name. Both names are used in the literature, but in the Ukrainian literature is used exclusively "Sridny Stog". Would you please take this into account? Barefact 01:10, 19 December 2006 (UTC) reply

What is your source that "Sridny Stog" is the Ukrainian name? The relevant article claims the Ukrainian name is Serednyi Stih. Not that it matters, though, as Sredny Stog is a well-established term in world scholarship, the vast majority of works on the subject being published in Russian. Furthermore, people living in the area predominantly speak Russian, not Ukrainian. -- Ghirla ^-трёп- 10:44, 19 December 2006 (UTC) reply

Thank you for your intervention. Golden Horde represents such a mixture of ethnicities and languages that it doesn't make a great deal of sense to give them an ethnic label (and I think that's a bad idea). There is a systematic deletion of turkic related entries in wikipedia that's why the article was attacked. See this. I added extra references to stop deletion of the turkic related entry. For the Kurgan Obelisks, you're right, it needs copyediting. Regards. E104421 14:30, 19 December 2006 (UTC) reply

I appreciate your intervention to Golden Horde as well. I was not deleting Russian History link intentionally. I was adding my old comments by copy pasting, hence it is lost. I will edit the page once more and try to not to delete Russian History:) Thanks Caglarkoca 14:51, 19 December 2006 (UTC) reply

I just wish your intervention to the article "Golden Horde". I don't want to engage in another edit revert war... It looks like that Tajik is trying to fill the whole page with references. It wouldn't take much for me to find many references to back my opinion, but the footnotes will not be useful in that case. Please have a look at Golden Horde. By the way, I am also accused of vandalism for this opinion:) Thanks Caglarkoca 00:51, 20 December 2006 (UTC) reply

Thank you for supporting my nomination. I am flattered that a seasoned Wikipedian like you appreciate my work.-- Berig 16:01, 19 December 2006 (UTC) reply

I actually think that the nomination was premature. Most people would oppose based on lack of admin space edits. -- Ghirla ^-трёп- 16:02, 19 December 2006 (UTC) reply

Well, it is not supposed to be a big deal, anyway. Much worse things than a rejection at RfA can happen in life.-- Berig 16:06, 19 December 2006 (UTC) reply

Please use English dictionary if some of the language on the discussion page The Ruin (Ukrainian history) was not clear. Noone called you a nationalist, your actions and use of bias words and inflamatory language was compared to those of Russian nationalists, read carefully. Noone claims ownershop of an article, that includes you. Renaming the article and redirecting others is a considerable change, and done without consulting is considered vandalism as well. Please discuss all significant additions before making them and refrain from using bias and inflamatory language.-- Hillock65 17:14, 19 December 2006 (UTC) reply

I noticed you edited some of a newbie in Rus' (people). Please notice also that the very first sentence is absolutely useless. It basically says that "Rus' (people) are some people", and lacks any specific information about historical or geographical location. Could you fix this? `' mikkanarxi 18:14, 19 December 2006 (UTC) reply

Mikka, I agree that the introductory statement is vague, but as vague and contradictory is our understanding of who those people were. As I said on talk, very different ethnic groups were known by this name throughout history, but even this statement is contentious and may lead to objections from other editors. This is a very delicate subject, as you may see for yourself. -- Ghirla ^-трёп- 18:19, 19 December 2006 (UTC) reply

I am not asking about who they are. One needs a mninimal context in the introduction. Were they in South Africa? in 16th century? The first sentence is plain ridiculous. `' mikkanarxi 03:43, 20 December 2006 (UTC) reply

Re:Michael's Castle By the way, some creative person recently changed all pages with the Swedish Nat. CoA to this: Image:Sweden greater arms.svg. And now some administrators seriously suggest using the home made version! -- Odengatan 22:20, 19 December 2006 (UTC) reply

Hello Ghirla. Glad to see that Rus' Khaganate succeeded at FAR (as if there was any doubt ...). I am wondering if you would have time to read over Áedán mac Gabráin and let me know what you think would need done to get it up to featured status. I'll be in Scotland for a couple of weeks, so it should be much easier to find sources than it is here in Brussels. Very many thanks in advance! Angus McLellan (Talk) 22:24, 19 December 2006 (UTC) reply

Could you please clarify your action described at WP:NCH#How_to_stop_a_vandal? Spoof sounds as if the info is made up but what appears to be a Ukrainian user thinks that you being Russian has something to do with it. You can help us clueless admins with some additional info here. - Mgm| ^(talk) 11:46, 20 December 2006 (UTC) reply

Hi Ghirlandajo

Would you be interested in an Ukrainian military history task force? Hillock65 is planning to establish one. Greatings Wandalstouring 12:47, 20 December 2006 (UTC) reply

I checked Hillock's talk page in uk.wiki and I see that the task force is being initiated by a group of editors who call me "vandal" and profess that their object is to spread Russophobic propaganda in English wikipedia. Sorry, I can't sign up to that. -- Ghirla ^-трёп- 19:46, 20 December 2006 (UTC) reply

OK, I realized 5 minutes ago there are some POV issues. Calling someone a vandal is no good basis for cooperation. Wandalstouring 19:54, 20 December 2006 (UTC) reply

I agree with you on the move/restoration of Muscovy (Grand Duchy) to Grand Duchy of Moscow. Please ask some administrator to restore the history. -- Petri Krohn 16:10, 20 December 2006 (UTC) reply

I can't edit because of continuous harrassing. As long as the situation normalizes, I will fix it. -- Ghirla ^-трёп- 16:12, 20 December 2006 (UTC) reply

Ghirla, can you really not bring yourself to just stop taking Piotrus' comments personally and stick to addressing facts and article content? Guy ( Help!) 22:08, 20 December 2006 (UTC) reply

What do you think about this move? I don't find it appropriate, especially without discussion. Beit Or 08:18, 21 December 2006 (UTC) reply

• Reverted. -- Ghirla ^-трёп- 08:20, 21 December 2006 (UTC) reply

Very uncool, please don't do that. There isn't any obligation to have a user page, is there? -- Milo H Minderbinder 13:27, 21 December 2006 (UTC) reply

Why should you care? My policy is to help new editors. If Yaksha does not want to start a user page, he may leave it blank. -- Ghirla ^-трёп- 13:29, 21 December 2006 (UTC) reply

Yaksha is not a new editor. I've deleted that page and he knows very well how to create a user page when he wants one (he used to have one and it was deleted at his request). Please don't do that again. Thanks. — Wknight94 ( talk) 13:43, 21 December 2006 (UTC) reply

Is there a consensus to delete his user page? Was it nominated for deletion today? It seems to me quite rude to delete a user page of another editor in good standing. Please don't abuse tools. Thanks, Ghirla ^-трёп- 13:47, 21 December 2006 (UTC) reply

He requested to delete his user page more than two months ago and has never created one again. He is free to create one whenever he wants. Please don't disrupt to make a point. Thanks. — Wknight94 ( talk) 14:07, 21 December 2006 (UTC) reply

So now do you understand why I care? Don't do it again. -- Milo H Minderbinder 15:14, 21 December 2006 (UTC) reply

Ghirla, just FYI, I've been compiling other evidence about Wknight94 at a recent ArbCom case. In your opinion, do you think I should add this deletion to the evidence? Or, would you like to create your own evidence section? If you would rather not get involved, I understand, but I did want to make you aware. Best wishes, -- El on ka 23:54, 21 December 2006 (UTC) reply

Ghirla, i do appreciate the friendly gesture, but i am intentionally userpage-less. I guess Wknight realized this from my userpage's deletion logs. But, no harm done - i would have requested a speedy delete anyway. There's really no need for us to argue about it. -- `/aksha 09:43, 22 December 2006 (UTC) reply

Could I just counsel you to ensure, before making a page move, that it is either non-controversial or supported by adequate discussion? Looking at your move log I see a couple which are open to question, and some comments have been made about these. It's a sure way to get into hot water (just ask SPUI). Thanks, Guy ( Help!) 14:08, 21 December 2006 (UTC) reply

Although I consider your comparison with another user quite offensive (it's Piotr's speciality for what I know), let's elaborate this point. Which of my moves do you consider "controversial" and why? If Piotr decries my every action on public boards, it is his right and (I daresay) hobby. His intention is to drag people into another mire on the model of Talk:Jogaila: a pointless chatroom which cannot reach any decision for years. -- Ghirla ^-трёп- 14:20, 21 December 2006 (UTC) reply

Did you know? was updated. On December 21, 2006, a fact from the article Bom Jesus do Monte, which you recently nominated, 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.

Thanks for your contributions! ++ Lar: t/ c 15:17, 21 December 2006 (UTC) reply

I think your point that it sucks to have all your edits publicly dicussed on various noticeboards is pretty clear from Piotrus' RfC already. If you feel Balcer was stalking / harassing you, counterharassing him is not exactly the right way to defuse the situation. I would like to see a minimization of needless drama instead of edit warring with established users over warnings on their own talk page. Anyway, Balcer is usually a pretty reasonable guy (see for example this wise edit; he also helped end the several-year-long edit war on whether Nicolaus Copernicus was Polish or German with a compromise) and it would suck if this exchange drives him away. I hope this is just a short Wikibreak, the recent warring with you seems to have worked him up a bit so a short Wikibreak is probably a good thing. Happy editing (and I hope you and Piotrus can find a way to edit more peacefully in the future so your valuable editing time won't be wasted in lengthy arbitration proceedings), Kusma (討論) 15:47, 21 December 2006 (UTC) reply

I assume good faith and am prepared to believe that Balcer has made some reasonable edits, although it almost certainly never happened in his interactions with me. I know him for a long time and know that he leaves Wikipedia for some periods, but each time returns to yield Piotr a helping hand in his anti-Ghirlandajo proceedings. So I would not dramatize the situation. -- Ghirla ^-трёп- 15:50, 21 December 2006 (UTC) reply

Otherl language wikipedias, eg., es:Principado de Moscú pont back to Muscovy. You may want to fix this, otherwise interwiki 'bots may screw up interlinks. `' mikkanarxi 17:23, 21 December 2006 (UTC) reply

Thanks for the alert. -- Ghirla ^-трёп- 17:23, 21 December 2006 (UTC) reply

I did the Dutch (Nederlands), German (Deutsch), Polish and French ones. The Danish was done by a bot. The German article has some potent information about the present-day use of the word "Moskowien". I suppose Taras Zelenyak's lawyers are hoping the judges in Novosibirsk do not know enough German to look this up in the German Wikipedia...-- Pan Gerwazy 20:53, 23 December 2006 (UTC) reply

Thanks for the compliment, but golly. Durova ^{Charg e!} 21:15, 21 December 2006 (UTC) reply

re [13], what is out of process on this? Yaksha had previously requested a deletion on his user page and had not created a new one, and you created one just to put a message that says "please create a userpage". That sounds like a G2 or even a G6 or U1. There's no need to take it personally. I'm sure no one meant to offend you, but it was a rather odd page creation. -- Ned Scott 08:52, 22 December 2006 (UTC) reply

As best I know, I am not obliged to investigate the history of the page's previous deletions before starting it. Furthermore, I have no tools to establish what happened with it in the past. What I see here, is that I wished to help a userpageless wikipedian by posting a good-natured advice and was subjected to aggression on the part of Dr. Mindbender and his friend. -- Ghirla ^-трёп- 08:58, 22 December 2006 (UTC) reply

I didn't see the above discussion. People are a little jumpy recently do to some high tension regarding a recent dispute. None the less, this is mostly just a misunderstanding. I can tell you that the deletion of the userpage itself wasn't out of process, though, per the WP:CSD points I mentioned above. -- Ned Scott 09:12, 22 December 2006 (UTC) reply

That depends on what you mean by "IRC-motivated." In my eyes, IRC is a medium -- it can be used both appropriately and abusively. I can't exactly describe what I was hoping would be my main point... I guess the best I can do is "one tree doesn't describe the whole forest." Luna Santin 10:58, 22 December 2006 (UTC) reply

There are many articles which have both succession boxes and templates, and the succession box gives dates as well, and makes the person easier to recognize. If anything should go, it should be the template. john k 15:50, 22 December 2006 (UTC) reply

Ancient cemetery was dug out in Chernihiv

-- Briangotts (Talk) (Contrib) 16:54, 22 December 2006 (UTC) reply

The reason I like both images is that they tell an important story (and thus summarize the content of the page). His Moscow campaign was the beginning of the end for the French Army. Both images show this destruction in different ways. A picture of a statue of some guy is just that. I am sure that it belong on the page about that guy, and even in a section about the monuments to the war, but it can not possibly summarize the content of the page about the Russian campaign. I guess I am willing to put up with poor resolution if it helps convey the 'big picture' the page is telling. The Gomm 19:44, 22 December 2006 (UTC) reply

Following the thread on WP:PAIN, I think we can no longer stave off arbitration: Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration#Piotrus and Ghirlandajo. Guy ( Help!) 22:35, 22 December 2006 (UTC) reply

Ghirla, Piotrus responded to my WP:ANI comment. He knows I've got a good working relationship with you and accepts me as suitably neutral for "template referee." Since this has escalated all the way to a proposed arbitration, would you be willing to try mediation over at my user talk? If the two of you can work things out informally it'd be a lot less painful than ArbCom. Best wishes, Durova ^{Charg e!} 23:32, 22 December 2006 (UTC) reply

Thanks, Durova. I am glad to accept your kind offer of mediation and I hope that Piotrus does the same. Too bad that Guy came up with his draft when there was night here in Russia. I would have told him that I would probably be off-line until the end of Christmas vacations, so the timing for his request just cannot be worse. -- Ghirla ^-трёп- 09:17, 23 December 2006 (UTC) reply

Serves me right for answering him before checking your talk page: I've made a proposal over there about a possible reconfirmation vote (which you'll probably want to see now that it's posted). It's early dawn right now in California and I'm usually a bit slow in the first minutes of the day. I'm willing to mediate either way. When do you expect to return from Christmas vacation? Durova ^{Charg e!} 14:14, 23 December 2006 (UTC) reply

In order to centralize the discussion I've started User talk:Durova/Mediation. Durova ^{Charg e!} 14:57, 23 December 2006 (UTC) reply

Hello Ghirla and everyone. I know I may not be the happiest person to show up here, but I feel I have a few things to say. First of all, I think we have to realize that everyone here is a valued and respected editor ... and really, I respect you guys a lot for it. I feel that a fundamental misunderstanding has occurred over my reasons and motives, and of others. Ghirla, I left the message not to be offensive, or inflamatory, but because I recognize, respect, and love your contributions to Wikipedia, and do not want a good user to go down a wrong path, such as that to arbitration that some seem to have assumed was an inevitability. I apologize if I at all came off as harsh, or cold in any of my dealings. But I think, given your PAIN report today, you know how it feels to be attacked without understanding the reason for it, and I truly did not understand Irpen's reasoning.

It is unfortunate, really, that the admins that chose to get involved did. I feel that they only added fuel to the fire, by making Irpen suspicious of IRC intervention. I will admit, I do use IRC, but not as much in an Wikipedia capacity - more to keep in touch with my loved one, and to be able to tell her I love her, as it is one of the only ways I have to do so right now. I am not going to deny that I frequent Wikipedia IRC channels, as I do. However, I hope you can believe in my honest when I say that I never requested a block in relation to any of this. I did not support a block - Irpen is also a valued contributor and without even a friendly notice as to what they were doing was wrong, how are they supposed to correct behaviours? Perhaps I am different from some of the sysops that frequent PAIN, but unless the person is clearly only here to disrupt Wikipedia, I believe in correction, not punishment - showing them where they are wrong, and helping them improve. After all, this benefits Wikipedia as a whole, blocking someone, well, that tends to be a loss, and I really try to avoid that ever happening.

I am sorry for being overly lengthy in this comment, however I felt it was neccesary to address the whole of this issue. I am extremely sorry for everyone involved that this issue blew up as much as it is. You are highly valued, respected, and I love you for it. Let's try to mend these bridges instead of damaging them and create a positive environment for the whole of the Encyclopedia ... all of us together. ✎ Peter M Dodge ( Talk to Me • Neutrality Project ) 00:58, 23 December 2006 (UTC) reply

I'm just dropping by to say "Thank You" for the edits on the Richard Wetz article. While I understand I'm not supposed to own the article, I feel both a bit proud and protective of it, and am glad to see it develop in this way.

I hope to collaborate more with you in the future! JBarrett 05:42, 23 December 2006 (UTC) reply

Oh, sorry to bother you, but it's just a quick question: For the article Alla Pavlova, would Павлова be correct for her last name? How would you spell her first name with Cyrillic letters? She's "Russian, of Ukrainian origin" if it matters. JBarrett 00:31, 24 December 2006 (UTC) reply

Please let the other party present the case they wish to present. Fred Bauder 17:46, 23 December 2006 (UTC) reply

• Ghirla, please take care. Right now you have a lot of people who are looking to help you and Piotrus sort out your differences, and hoping for an objective ruling on the basis of both your grievances. If someone puts something in the wrong place, ask one of the clerks ot move it, OK? From my experience you will have plenty of time to discuss and rebut Piotrus' claims, but that process starts after the case is accepted and in the context of the Workshop page. Please don't make things worse when we're trying to get a sense of calm and order. I'm sure the Clerks will have no problem moving somethign if it's misplaced, they are good people. Guy ( Help!) 20:06, 23 December 2006 (UTC) reply

Dear Ghirlandajo/Winter 2007, I wish you a very, very merry Winterval! And since I don't know which you celebrate, I hope you have/had/will have a very happy Holiday!. Hope you and your family have a magnificent day, or series of days! You might wanna install the "SaucyMillionaire" font to see this correctly. Cheers, mate! : ) — Rand fan ! !

God (or your deity/deities) bless you and your family! — ¡ Rand fan ! ^{Sign here?} 02:30, 22 December 2006 (UTC) reply

-I was planning to hand these out on the 22nd of Dec. but things got in the way.... Happy holidays! — ¡ Rand fan ! ^{Sign here?} 20:41, 23 December 2006 (UTC) reply

For what it's worth, merry XMAS from me, and a gift that I know you well earned: something to keep your well deserved collection of awards in. Let us both hope we can resolve our differences before the New Year, shall we? --  _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus |  talk}  14:37, 22 December 2006 (UTC) reply

Salad'o'meter™ put barnstars here (no thumb or direction) n00b involved been around veteran seen it all older than the Cabal itself

Hi Ghirlandajo! П.П. Базен? Пьер Базен? Some sources call him Peter, Pyotr etc. Bazen? How about Pierre Basin? By the way, Carlo Bartolomeo Rastrelli needs more recognition here, don't you think? ;) -- regards, Odengatan

Hi Ghirla, I just wanted to say I'm very happy to see the progress that you and Piotrus are making (with Durova's help!) in resolving your weird little war! :) Thanks and congratulations to all three of you, and Merry Christmas to all! K. Lástocska 16:10, 25 December 2006 (UTC) reply

Hello,

An Arbitration case involving you has been opened: Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Piotrus-Ghirla. Please add any evidence you may wish the arbitrators to consider to the evidence sub-page, Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Piotrus-Ghirla/Evidence. You may also contribute to the case on the workshop sub-page, Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Piotrus-Ghirla/Workshop.

On behalf of the Arbitration Committee, -- Srikeit 05:30, 27 December 2006 (UTC) reply

Thatcher responded to the question you left on my talk page. [14] My apologies for not responding myself - I have been busy the last 18 hours or so. Cheers, and best of luck, Daniel.Bryant ^{[  T ·  C ]} 00:55, 28 December 2006 (UTC) reply

Thanks for uploading Image:Anna's_crown.jpg. The image has been identified as not specifying the source and creator of the image, which is required by Wikipedia's policy on images. If you don't indicate the source and creator of the image on the image's description page, it may be deleted some time in the next seven days. If you have uploaded other images, please verify that you have provided source information for them as well.

For more information on using images, see the following pages:

• Wikipedia:Image use policy
• Wikipedia:Image copyright tags

This is an automated notice by OrphanBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. 07:44, 28 December 2006 (UTC) reply

An image you uploaded, Image:Rum-gerb.jpg, was tagged with the {{ coatofarms}} copyright tag. This tag was deleted because it does not actually specify the copyright status of the image. The image may need a more accurate copyright tag, or it may need to be deleted. If the image portrays a seal or emblem, it should be tagged as {{ seal}}. If you have any questions, ask them at Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. -- 01:31, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

You're one of my favourite contributors! Please reconsider your decision, because Wikipedia will suffer greatly if you depart for good. Biruitorul 02:57, 30 December 2006 (UTC) reply

Hopefully not too cryptic - just typical way of wishing that wherever the irony of fate may now lead you, you will find in 2007 a good home for your hardy work. I am sure it will be that place's gain and this place's loss. I still cannot believe you will really leave this place alone, however. С наступающим! -- Pan Gerwazy 00:08, 31 December 2006 (UTC) reply

Thanks for uploading Image:Demidov_coat.jpg. The image has been identified as not specifying the copyright status of the image, which is required by Wikipedia's policy on images. If you don't indicate the copyright status of the image on the image's description page, using an appropriate copyright tag, it may be deleted some time in the next seven days. If you have uploaded other images, please verify that you have provided copyright information for them as well.

For more information on using images, see the following pages:

• Wikipedia:Image use policy
• Wikipedia:Image copyright tags

This is an automated notice by OrphanBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. 09:00, 31 December 2006 (UTC) reply

File:1953 S Novym Godom.jpg

С Новым годом! Здоровья, счастья, творческих успехов! -- Vald 17:00, 31 December 2006 (UTC)

От всей души присоединяюсь, и желаю бодрости духа и скорейшего возвращения к работе в проекте с новыми силами после каникул. Here's to the happy, productive and rewarding 2007! Awaiting your victorious return to the active work on the project after the Christmas break! - With kind regards - Vera - Introvert •  ~ 22:44, 1 January 2007 (UTC) reply

С Новым годом! I hope you change your mind and come back... — dima /s-ko/ 00:33, 2 January 2007 (UTC) reply

I can only join to the voices of pleading you to return. -- Irpen 05:54, 2 January 2007 (UTC) reply

I don't know if you are interested in Fyodor Dostoevsky's article, but I think a thorough rewriting of it may be one of my main priorites during 2007 (Dostoevski has always been my favorite writer along with Plato). Since you are one of the best Russian Wikipedians, I thought about telling you that, in case you were interested in the article, and you would like to help, taking into consideration also the fact that you have access in Russian sources. Anyway, these are just thoughts of mine. My plans for 2007 are not yet clear. I'm working on some articles now, but I don't know yet where is going to be my main focus. I also see you are in a wikibreak. We'll have to speak about this stuff, when you'll be back for good. Happy new year!-- Yannismarou 17:56, 31 December 2006 (UTC) reply

Giano and Bishonen are already back. Hopefully, you'll be too! And Happy New Year! Cmapm 00:01, 1 January 2007 (UTC) reply

Thanks for uploading Image:Dondukov.jpg. The image has been identified as not specifying the copyright status of the image, which is required by Wikipedia's policy on images. If you don't indicate the copyright status of the image on the image's description page, using an appropriate copyright tag, it may be deleted some time in the next seven days. If you have uploaded other images, please verify that you have provided copyright information for them as well.

For more information on using images, see the following pages:

• Wikipedia:Image use policy
• Wikipedia:Image copyright tags

This is an automated notice by OrphanBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. 13:03, 3 January 2007 (UTC) reply

Thanks for uploading Image:Tilsit_bridge.jpg. The image has been identified as not specifying the source and creator of the image, which is required by Wikipedia's policy on images. If you don't indicate the source and creator of the image on the image's description page, it may be deleted some time in the next seven days. If you have uploaded other images, please verify that you have provided source information for them as well.

For more information on using images, see the following pages:

• Wikipedia:Image use policy
• Wikipedia:Image copyright tags

This is an automated notice by OrphanBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. 10:52, 6 January 2007 (UTC) reply

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

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

Alternatively, you can also choose to replace the fair use image by finding a freely licensed image of its subject, requesting that the copyright holder release this (or a similar) image under a free license, or by taking a picture of it yourself.

If you have uploaded other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified how these images fully satisfy our fair use criteria. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on this link. Note that any fair use images which are replaceable by free-licensed alternatives will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. MECU≈ talk 01:00, 9 January 2007 (UTC) reply

Hi Ghirla

Some editors have inserted unverified material on general Erich von Manstein of the Wehrmacht containing claims that the Russians did defeat him and that he wasn't that brilliant as he is commonly presented in German and English sources it seems. The section is currently unreferenced while the article looks like based on a translation from the German wiki. Perhaps you know a bit more about the Southern frontline during WWII and what POV for example Russian historians had on this personality and where it can be looked up. Thanks a lot. Greatings Wandalstouring 01:17, 11 January 2007 (UTC) reply

It is a pitty that you have enough !! I just identified you, as someone who could hekp me with the summer residence Favorite Mainz - de:Lustschloss Favorite (Mainz) project. Could you recommend someone else ?? -- Symposiarch 15:01, 11 January 2007 (UTC) reply

Thanks for uploading Image:Arkaim.jpg. I notice the file's description page currently doesn't specify who created the content, so the copyright status is unclear. If you have not created this file yourself, then you need to specify who owns the copyright, please. If you got it from a website, then a link to the website where it was taken from with a restatement of that website's terms of use of its content is usually sufficient information. However, if the copyright holder is different from the website's publisher then their copyright should also be acknowledged.

As well as the source, please add a proper copyright licensing tag if the file doesn't have one already. If you created/took the picture, audio, or video then the {{ GFDL-self}} tag can be used to release it under the GFDL. If you believe the media meets the criteria at Wikipedia:Fair use, use a tag such as {{ Non-free fair use in|article name}} or one of the other tags listed at Wikipedia:Image copyright tags#Fair use. See Wikipedia:Image copyright tags for the full list of copyright tags that you can use.

If you have uploaded other files, consider checking that you have specified their source and tagged them, too. You can find a list of files you have uploaded by following this link. Unsourced and untagged images may be deleted one week after they have been tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If the image is copyrighted under a non-free license (per Wikipedia:Fair use) then the image will be deleted 48 hours after 00:17, 12 January 2007 (UTC). If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. MECU≈ talk 00:17, 12 January 2007 (UTC) reply

• I have provided a source Alex Bakharev 05:54, 12 January 2007 (UTC) reply

Привет! Можешь помочь мне разобраться с одним фактом. В русской википедии, откуда я взял данные для статьи, ничего не нговрится о том, что битва длилась 3 дня и что казаки потеряли около 100 человек. Однако в Russian conquest of Siberia, которое я скопировал с раздела Conquest статьи Siberia Khanate указываются несколько иные подробности битвы... И кстати, я так понимаю, что "завоевание" закончилось в 1598 году битвой на Ирмени, когда окончательно был разбит Кучум., т.о. продвижение русских по Сибири послде этого события уже не относится к "завоеванию", а к "освоению"? Меня интересует насколько правиль было назвать статью Conquest of Siberia. Ведь ханстов-то перестало существовать как таковое после битвы на Чувашевом мысу. Очень надеюсь, что ты разовьёшь тему, поправишь ошибки. По Сибирскому ханству кое-что есть и в татарской энциклопедии, но довольно мутно... -- Üñţïf̣ļëŗ (see also: ә? Ә!) 16:41, 24 January 2007 (UTC) reply

To my shame, I have only just noticed the absence of your edits (the second such person today). Please come back, if only to educate us poor ignorant westerners. -- ALoan (Talk) 22:43, 24 January 2007 (UTC) reply

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

As well as adding the source, please add a proper copyright licensing tag if the file doesn't have one already. If you created/took the picture, audio, or video then the {{ GFDL-self}} tag can be used to release it under the GFDL. If you believe the media meets the criteria at Wikipedia:Fair use, use a tag such as {{ Non-free fair use in|article name}} or one of the other tags listed at Wikipedia:Image copyright tags#Fair use. See Wikipedia:Image copyright tags for the full list of copyright tags that you can use.

If you have uploaded other files, consider checking that you have specified their source and tagged them, too. You can find a list of files you have uploaded by following this link. Unsourced and untagged images may be deleted one week after they have been tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If the image is copyrighted under a non-free license (per Wikipedia:Fair use) then the image will be deleted 48 hours after 10:42, 26 January 2007 (UTC). If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. 195.113.166.134 10:42, 26 January 2007 (UTC) reply

The source has been provided. TheQuandry 22:08, 30 January 2007 (UTC) reply

A request for mediation has been filed with the Mediation Committee that lists you as a party. The Mediation Committee requires that all parties listed in a mediation must be notified of the mediation. Please review the request at Wikipedia:Requests for mediation/Jogaila, and indicate whether you agree or refuse to mediate. If you are unfamiliar with mediation, please refer to Wikipedia:Mediation. There are only seven days for everyone to agree, so please check as soon as possible.
I hope this will encourage you to come back! Best regards, Angus McLellan (Talk) 01:13, 1 February 2007 (UTC) reply

This case is now closed and the results have been published at the link above.

Because Ghirlandajo, a main party to this case, has not edited since December 27, 2006, and because of an ongoing informal mediation attempt that occured prior to Ghirlandajo's absence, this case is temporarily dismissed. If and when Ghirlandajo returns, it would be best for him to resume productive mainspace editing, which it is hoped can take place without a recurrence of the disputes that led to this case. As appropriate, the mediation between Ghirlandajo and Piotrus can be resumed to seek resolution of any live disputes that might remain between them. Under the circumstances, the arbitration case is dismissed, without prejudice to a request by any party to reopen it in the future if necessary.

For the Arbitration Committee, – Chacor 01:15, 1 February 2007 (UTC) reply

Thanks for uploading Image:Sancydiamond.jpg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable under fair use (see our fair use policy).

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the " my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that any fair use images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. This is an automated message from BJBot 22:18, 2 February 2007 (UTC) reply

I'm glad to see you. In case you didn't notice, ArbCom dismissed the case (they had deferred to mediation almost as soon as it opened). I'll be around whenever you have more time. Cheers, Durova ^Charge! 00:33, 8 February 2007 (UTC) reply

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

As well as adding the source, please add a proper copyright licensing tag if the file doesn't have one already. If you created/took the picture, audio, or video then the {{ GFDL-self}} tag can be used to release it under the GFDL. If you believe the media meets the criteria at Wikipedia:Fair use, use a tag such as {{ Non-free fair use in|article name}} or one of the other tags listed at Wikipedia:Image copyright tags#Fair use. See Wikipedia:Image copyright tags for the full list of copyright tags that you can use.

If you have uploaded other files, consider checking that you have specified their source and tagged them, too. You can find a list of files you have uploaded by following this link. Unsourced and untagged images may be deleted one week after they have been tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If the image is copyrighted under a non-free license (per Wikipedia:Fair use) then the image will be deleted 48 hours after 16:16, 8 February 2007 (UTC). If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Alex Spade 16:16, 8 February 2007 (UTC) reply

Hi there, good to see you! Bishonen | talk 19:58, 8 February 2007 (UTC). reply

It is. Please come back - we miss you! -- ALoan (Talk) 20:42, 8 February 2007 (UTC) reply

Hope to run into you from time to time! -- Wetman 23:25, 8 February 2007 (UTC) reply

Dear friends! Though I'm thoroughly disgusted with some things that happen in English Wikipedia, I am resolved to come back to editing when I am through with my current projects in Russian Wikipedia. Working in a hostile environment is not all doom and gloom, so I wish you good luck and all the best! -- Ghirla ^-трёп- 15:23, 12 February 2007 (UTC) reply

You were begining to make me worried! Giano 15:35, 12 February 2007 (UTC) reply

This is the best news I have heard all day. -- ALoan (Talk) 15:47, 12 February 2007 (UTC) reply

How about all months? This is so for me, at least in the wikilife. Ghirla, when you are back and need help, please drop me a note. -- Irpen 18:42, 12 February 2007 (UTC) reply

I'll be happy indeed to see you back, Andrey. Beit Or 18:51, 12 February 2007 (UTC) reply

I hope you will finish your projects in Russian Wikipedia ASAP and return here with fresh powers. Be quick! M.K. 21:48, 12 February 2007 (UTC) reply

Make haste hither! Biruitorul 07:47, 13 February 2007 (UTC) reply

Nice to have you back. -- Whiskey 19:15, 14 February 2007 (UTC) reply

Hi there, Ghirla! Long time no see! Now you're gonna be stuck in Russian Wikipedia (can't blame you, it really needs your help and expertise). Just don't forget to stop by here! KNewman 19:49, 21 February 2007 (UTC) reply

I second this request, as I recall that my first ever block was performed by none other than David Levy after I had reverted vandalism by User:Bonaparte (now permabanned). I still await apologies for that incident, by the way. -- Ghirla ^-трёп- 16:03, 14 February 2007 (UTC) reply

No, you didn't revert vandalism. There was no policy or guideline against the other user's edits. You merely disagreed with the changes and believed that your opinion was sacrosanct. You had just gotten done reporting another user's 3RR violation, and then you argued that the rule shouldn't be applied to you because of your stature within the project.

In any event, I'm sincerely glad that the incident didn't drive you away. Despite your allegations that I was biased against Russian people and wanted you to leave, nothing could be further from the truth.

On a semi-related note, upon running a Google search for our usernames (to refresh my memory regarding the details of the aforementioned incident), I stumbled upon a message from September 2006. I overlooked it at the time, so I'm replying now. — David Levy 16:56, 14 February 2007 (UTC) reply

On 9 September, 2006, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Onion dome, which you created. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the "Did you know?" talk page.

-- Srikeit ^{( Talk | Email)} 15:53, 9 September 2006 (UTC) reply

The entry was removed because it failed to meet the inclusion criteria. An article over five days old must have been marked as a stub and must not have exceeded 1,000 characters prior to the expansion. This article contained no stub tag, and it was almost 1,500 characters in length (excluding spaces). — David Levy 19:35, 9 September 2006 (UTC) reply

Just noticed that the discussion continues on Wikipedia talk:Did you know and the updaters believe that the article conforms to DYK guidelines. I can't say it was nice of you not to inform me about the discussion. But then, it hardly comes as a surprise that, out of 1000 admins, it was David Levy who spotted the latest Ghirlandajo's disruption. Thanks for your watchfulness. -- Ghirla ^-трёп- 17:55, 11 September 2006 (UTC) reply

I just noticed the above message, so I'm posting a belated reply:

1. I didn't remove the entry. Mzajac did. At the time, I had just cropped this photograph and placed it on the main page. I merely explained what happened because Mzajac didn't bother to.

2. I was unaware of the discussion (which evidently arose later on). — David Levy 16:56, 14 February 2007 (UTC) reply

Hi Ghirla, This stub badly needs the attention of someone who knows a bit about the subject. Any chance of you adding a bit? Thanks Johnbod 18:00, 14 February 2007 (UTC) reply

PS, I don't know if the new List of Printmakers is of any interest. This is partly a preliminary to sorting out the chaotic & error-stuffed printmaking categories. Johnbod 18:06, 14 February 2007 (UTC) reply

As you hadve contributed to the article Moscow I wanted to let you know it is in Featured Article Candidates list now. -- Hirakawacho 08:37, 16 February 2007 (UTC) reply

That was a long break.... I've noticed your work at the Russian Wikipedia, and I'm glad to have you back. regards, Odengatan 14:23, 17 February 2007 (UTC) reply

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

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

Alternatively, you can also choose to replace the fair use image by finding a freely licensed image of its subject, requesting that the copyright holder release this (or a similar) image under a free license, or by taking a picture of it yourself.

If you have uploaded other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified how these images fully satisfy our fair use criteria. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on this link. Note that any fair use images which are replaceable by free-licensed alternatives will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. — Bkell ( talk) 02:07, 23 February 2007 (UTC) reply

File:Novodevichiy night.jpg

I found this one if you want to use it. Nightview though. Please come back. -- Irpen 08:57, 23 February 2007 (UTC) reply

Irpen, please have patience. I think English Wikipedia needs to be punished for its unhealthy attitude towards long-standing contributors, and I don't care if they destroy everything I contributed to this project (which they seem to be busy at, as you see above). Nevertheless, I plan to return here full-time after I am through with two projects I'm involved with in Russian wikipedia. -- Ghirla ^-трёп- 12:54, 23 February 2007 (UTC) reply