User talk:Kuban kazak/2006 1

С Новым Годом!

. --Irpen

Спасибо! Тебя тоже с прошедшем и с наступающим старым Новым Годом!Kuban kazak 20:46, 8 January 2006 (UTC)

Check: Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Alex Bakharev Take a look. It seems there that the raging russophobia of some is the only reason of the attempts to derail the candidacy of one of the most worthy people for the job. His unquestionably high ethics and decensy are so clear even from how he handles the criticism and shameless attacks at his own RfAdm even for those who don't know him his contributions to Wikipedia. --Irpen 19:17, 10 January 2006 (UTC)

Thanks

Thanks. WikiThanks.

I would like to express my thanks to all the good people who spent their valuable time time and effort working on my (failed) RfA voting. Especially for those who actually voted to support me :). Lets move on and make together our Wikipedia an even greater place abakharev 10:00, 12 January 2006 (UTC)

3RR block on Belarusian language

I have blocked you for 3RR on Belarusian language. Clearly there is an edit war going on there that I don't understand; in view of your previous warning and apparent clear violation, you're getting a block. If you feel this is invalid, or there are some extreme extenuating circumstances, please email me or reply here: I'm watching. William M. Connolley 20:44, 17 January 2006 (UTC).

f one reads the edit history then they will find the following: Back on the 14 of december I put an edit adding a lot of information, slightly repharasing and NPOVing the articles [1]. [User:Rydel] comes along and reverts it compleately [2]. Not having it on my watchlist I return to the article 21st and keeping the two newer edits once again put my main edit content into the article and offer to Rydel discussion. Rydel reverts [3]. Having it on my watchlist I go to the talk page of the article [4] and on Rydel's talk page [5]. Amir80 comes along to the former's call and I explain my actions there to him [6]. Still not responding to my calls for a discussion Rydel reverts once more [7] But this time by reinserting some of the paragraphs which I rewrote not ommiting a single fact on top of mine, so we have now a heavy POV slanted paragraphs followed by a table (my original addition) followed by my NPOVed paragraphs causing the article to lose its conciseness and timeline. I revert, and warn Rydel on his talk page that next time I will report this to the WP:3RR [8] (remembering that he has not responded yet to my call for a discussion). A week later on the 27th and 28th two anon user restore Rydel's version and one puts on a talk page urging me to stop. [9], to which I responed [10]. Rydel the all of a sudden comes along, once again tries to revert his version which I restore (I suspect heavy sockpuppetry there). And respond on his talk page [11]. Until 10th of January everything is quiet, Then comes AndriyK a person known for his trolling habits (mind you his has a whole arbitration filed against him). Despite starting a section on the [talk page http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk%3ABelarusian_language&diff=35432295&oldid=33519645] of the article and on his talk page. Then I carried out my threat and posted it on the admin noticeboard. Now I find myself blocked for going with wikipedia rules and removing controversial edits that received no discussion or explanation from the other party. I urge you to look into this. --Kuban kazak 21:02, 17 January 2006 (UTC)

I am not going to review content. 3RR applies to anything except vandalism, and this wasn't reverting vandalism. Now I find myself blocked for going with wikipedia rules.... No: you find yourself blocked for breaking the rules. Also, starting a section entitled "for the trolls" [12] was a Bad Idea. Can you provide a diff to what you posted on the admin noticeboard., please? William M. Connolley 21:13, 17 January 2006 (UTC).

And is putting back controversial information without any explanation or reasoning not? despite my numerous appeals for discussion not vandalism? Although I understand that the wording "troll" can be seen as offensive, what I do not understand is how the behaivour which includes reverts w/o any discussion is not?

If you are having a content dispute (which clearly you are) then it needs to go through RFC/Mediation/RFA (well there is an RFA, which I presume relates). But during that process *you need to avoid breaking the rules*. William M. Connolley 21:51, 17 January 2006 (UTC).

Also have a look at the version which they (Andriy and Rydel are trying to restore):

One of the reasons for this situation is the minority status of Belarusian speakers in urban areas—traditional cultural centers. For example, according to the 1897 Imperial Russian census, in Belarusian towns of more than 50,000 residents, only 7.3% respondents reported Belarusian as their mother tongue (the criterion in defining nationality for the purposes of the census). This state of affairs greatly contributed to a perception that Belarusian is a "rural", "uneducated" language.

In the 19th century and at the beginning of the 20th century, very few people wrote in Belarusian, peasants being mostly illiterate, and urban dwellers preferring Russian, Polish or Yiddish. Still there existed a minor movement for returning to the Belarusian language; it was important in the circle of friends of Adam Mickiewicz.

Then my table

In all respects the urban language of Belarusian towns remained either Polish or Russian and in the same census towns exceeding 50000 had Belarusian speakers of less than a tenth. This state of affairs greatly contributed to a perception that Belarusian is a "rural", "uneducated" language.

However the census was a major brakethrough for the first steps of the Belarusian nation, as it clearely showed that by this point the population and the language was neither Polish nor Russian. In 1904 the Russian Imperial athorities legalised the language and Belarusian schools along with communities switched their language of communication. Initially only in Rural areas, but in cities all schools too were mandatory to include Belarusian language.

IMHO two paragraphs repeating each other. -- Kuban kazak 21:31, 17 January 2006 (UTC)

Kazak. Just be careful with 3RR. Trolls are very inventive in provoking their opponents into real or not 3RR and they eagerly report them to get an upper hand if unsuspecting admin imposes a block without looking at the issue carefully on whether it was a vadalism revertion or other similar obvious action. If you need to revert for the forth time, still don't do it. Wait for what others will say and/or ask others to look at the issue. Finally, if the rv warring includes suspected sockpuppets, report them but still don't 3RR. The goal of 3RR is not to punish anyone but to prevent endless revert warring and there is no shame in having 3RR blocks in history. However, this can be extremely frustrating and to avoid the block just don't do it. regards, --Irpen 16:59, 18 January 2006 (UTC)

Re block length. I see I forgot to tell you that it was only for one hour: my apologies. It was possible for you to find this out, but probably rather difficult to find the right page (see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Log/block if you ever want to know again; hopefully not).

As to the mechanism: blocks are set for a fixed length of time, then remove themselves. To be "unblocked" has a special meaning: it means that someone has deliberately removed your block before its own automatic expiry.

William M. Connolley 22:52, 18 January 2006 (UTC).

Kuban!!

HA! Your name reminded me, there's a town called "New Kuban" not far from here. This is probably a strange question from your perspective, but do you know anything about it? There's about .015 sources of information of any recentness or soundness about it around here. Thanx 68.39.174.238 00:56, 19 January 2006 (UTC) PS. My IPs static, so any replies there will be found.

Where is here? Kuban is a territory in Russia starting from the coast of the black sea and moving inwards. If you are in the states then it was most likely founded by the emirge population after the revolution and civil war. --Kuban kazak 08:42, 19 January 2006 (UTC)

Simon Dach

Please add the page to your watchlist. I'm tired of fighting such edits alone. Also, please archive your talk page: it takes ages to download it. --Ghirla | talk 09:51, 20 January 2006 (UTC)

I was asked to come stop a revert war started by Space Cadet. He has been asked multiple times to explain his changes on the talk page and has failed to do so. Your entering into a revert war is not helping. Please either refrain from reverting, or explain on the talk page why you think those changes are correct. Thanks! KillerChihuahua^?!? 10:57, 20 January 2006 (UTC)

My error, I had mis-read that you had simply reverted. My apologies. KillerChihuahua^?!? 11:06, 20 January 2006 (UTC)

Revert warriors

Kazak, please cool off and don't feed trolls. --Irpen 23:30, 22 January 2006 (UTC)

Also, please link to Little Russia when you use the term. --Irpen 23:34, 22 January 2006 (UTC)

Little Russia I used when quoting 1897 census data, that is how it is presented there. --Kuban kazak 23:54, 22 January 2006 (UTC)

Mate, something has to be done against them. I mean, have a look at the story of Belarusian language, it shows that they will stop at nothing to get their view across. Правда промазал Ардрюшка по полной, заблокировал меня, а я просто правду сказал...а потом наконец прочитал то что он пытался восстановить, какие-то глупые пункты выдвинул...моментально получив по шапке, уже неделю его не видно и не слышно... А остальные...Рыдель, Андрей Александрович, какой то Космонавт (Спейскадет), впечетления что вообще люди пришли сюда исключительно бредить обо всем возможным. I reckon that the WP should officially classify people, who are involved in trolling as trolls.

Yeah, cool off, try to use proper English when you're on my talk page, and I don't need no capsules, I travel through space on foot. Space Cadet 23:41, 22 January 2006 (UTC)

Really? So what brings you to wiki...why not go to the moon. You will make a lot of people happy that way... :-) --Kuban kazak 23:54, 22 January 2006 (UTC)

As for Little Russia, I don't mind the term being used properly. Moreover, it was me who created the Little Russia article. That it was used in census is enough reason to include it. OTOH the reader has to get the clue that the term is obsolete and linking to the term's article is an easy way to do it.

AndriyK is not going anywhere. From time to time he shows up in different articles to help some buddies in revert wars. Even if he gets blocked for a month, it won't make much difference. He will be back. Personally, I don't care whether he is blocked. If not him, someone else will be there to continue the crusade. Learn to live with trolls hanging around. It is regretable that a small group of users show up between articles just to revert and contributing nothing to the discussions. I doubt they read them at all. There is nothing we can do about it because those guys are not socks. Live with it and be patient. Stchastlivo, --Irpen 00:05, 23 January 2006 (UTC)

Listen, please learn to better tolerate the fierce disagreements. Your opponents are not going anywhere and just remember that. Also, I understand that for you it is only natural to use Russian names for Ukrainian places but if some take offence in that, why make such a big deal about it? You could not to not expect that Ukrainian metro articles will end up under Ukrainian names. Why create them under the Russian ones? For me, it's no offence. I would just propose the move at talk and than move them, but for some it is. Why annoy people? Sorry, for unsolicited advice. I will try to help on Kiev Metro. --Irpen 02:16, 26 January 2006 (UTC)

I did allow Oleg Petrov to move the articles to Ukrainian. I allowed Pecher to move Kharkov Metro to Kharkiv Metro. I find it easier to use Russian names because they are more familiar to me. But in articles I do not mind them being replaced with Ukrainian ones. --Kuban kazak 13:11, 26 January 2006 (UTC)

Re:Metro

Hi, thanks for the note on Metro portal. Please note that all the information in Wkipedia must be appropriately sourced. It would be nice to have sources for sentences like "Fruits, vegetables, flowers, CDs, books, clothing...can all be found there. It is also possible to find fast food cafes in some passages." before they can be restored.--Pecher 19:55, 23 January 2006 (UTC)

Re:Kiosks

The reference that you provided actually talks of an attempt to remove vendors from the metro. In addition, mere personal observation is insufficient because any sources must be verifiable. Can you think of rewriting the passage so as to make it easier to support with evidence?--Pecher 22:11, 23 January 2006 (UTC)

Vorsha

Thanx for adding those city emblems of Vorsha. This was a pretty nice addition. --rydel 01:26, 27 January 2006 (UTC)

AndriyK RfAr closed

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

On behalf of the Arbitration Committee, Kelly Martin (talk) 04:57, 27 January 2006 (UTC)

Транслитерация восточнославянских имен и названий

Заметил ваш коментарий на "Vote:Mikhail of Chernihiv - Mikhail of Chernigov", который очень хорошо осветил всю нелепость принятой американской "транслитерации" кириллицы. Напомню: там в ответ на сообщение какого-то вербованного украинского националиста вы перевели его "Mykhaylo of Chernighiv" как "Мыхаыло оф Чернигхив". Я пытаюсь начать всеобщее введение любого из вариантов ГОСТ-а как стандартный на Википедии - вы со мной? Если так - я уже поднял вопрос на российском портале и на страничке обсуждения правил транслита. Удачи! Kazak 17:53, 28 January 2006 (UTC)

Please don't do that again

Mr.Kazak, one more comment like this and I'll start official anti-troll procedure against you. Regarding the fact that you permannently express shauvenistic POVs in the talk pages, that procedure is likely to be successfull. Ukrained 19:42, 28 January 2006 (UTC)

Напугал... Do what? Revert trolling to versions which has been accepted by all but a minority of editors on wiki? Does that insult you? Because it was not directed against you for one thing, and second wether the arbitration would be successful or not you are forgeting that there are more Russian wikipedian editors. And about chauvism...have a look at yourself:

• I think that the that times prevailing terminology passage is misleading, contradicting to the article's context and offensive. You know, Russia was (and is) a totalitarian state without press and thought freedom.

Так что не ищи правду в других коли в тебе ее нету, а то тоже мне... --Kuban kazak 19:56, 28 January 2006 (UTC)

I'd like to stress the following:

• Mr.Kazak made at least two insulting comments today, the other being directly against me
• In the post above Mr.kazak is threating to form a cabal or Russian editors to forge his future RfA. This is another serious breach of civility. BTW, I ask those RU editors who do not participate in such a conspiracy to react. Are there any such editors? Ukrained 20:11, 28 January 2006 (UTC)

Sorry is this adressed to me or to someone else, because otherwise I will remove this, since it is obviously meant to be read by a third person.

Kuban kazak, I agree with what's said above. Not denying your useful edits, I not once asked you to avoind inflammatory remarks. This contributes to the poisonous climate here. Thanks, --Irpen 20:13, 28 January 2006 (UTC)

Well if someone here can't be manly enough to take simple jokes I cannot help but to assume that the chauvist, imperialist nomenclature justifies these people. В конце концов по упрямости они точно равны Русским, а по дуре тем более... А вот явная параноя и капризы подобные тому что написано выше действительно неспособность быть мужчинами. As a result = Little Russians. Если я этим рассуждением нажал на больную точку... ну извените, опять же не по-мужски ее подставлять.

I would like to stress that there are many capable Ukrainains here and because of this I will never think of saying anything against them. Prior to today I had a much higher opinion of Ukrained, personally very dissapointing.

Personally had Ukrained set a correct tone, he would have had an apology already, but that is yet another typical Russian habit of escalating conflicts over nothing. Had he given thought prior to writing none of this would have been written, but (yet again demonstrating a very bad Russian habit) he did not. --Kuban kazak 20:37, 28 January 2006 (UTC)

TO WHOM IT MAY CONCERN: The Russian text above contains insulting generalizations regarding all Ukrainians. The translation may be provided within the RfA procedure. BTW, I guess erasing/archiving that text should be qualified as hiding evidence of Wikirules breaking. Ukrained

sigh...btw accusing me of being a Ukrainophobe is rediculous, my wife is Volynian and I have lived in Rovno for several years. --Kuban kazak 21:19, 28 January 2006 (UTC)

---

Regardless of what is said above I do personally apologise to those who found this edit comment offensive, however I would like to see a much more manly attitude from some of the users.

Sincirely

-Kuban kazak 20:41, 28 January 2006 (UTC)

Ok, now then let's close the issue and get back to work. I posted the same message at Ukrained's page. From my experience, you can work with that editor. Just remind him from time to time to chill out a bit :) and remain cool yourself. There are so few editors contributing to Ukrainian wiki, that we have to treasure every non-trolling contributor, especially this one with the commitment to write rather than name-change. Peace everyone, --Irpen 20:42, 28 January 2006 (UTC)
P.S. he is not the only one that needs to be "reminded". Sometimes I could use a reminder too, perhaps. :) --Irpen 20:42, 28 January 2006 (UTC)

Apologies rejected, the issue has just been opened very-very wide.

To Irpen: He can't work with me, . And let's decide can you. As I told Mr. Bakharev, you only have two alternatives. Ukrained 21:11, 28 January 2006 (UTC)

Disappointed sigh...a sorry sight. --Kuban kazak 21:19, 28 January 2006 (UTC)

Kuban kazak, check your email. --Irpen 21:20, 28 January 2006 (UTC)

Figure captions

Thanks for adding and organizing the images at the Verkhovna Rada building articl. Do you really dislike more elaborate captions? I find it nice when the caption provides a ministory on its own and many books do that. My first experience was the caption to the Kiev Metro sign in UA lang article and I keep using it. Do you think we should not do it? Also, I sent you a link to an article about the Kiev Metro expansion plans. You are welcome to use it. --Irpen 22:07, 4 February 2006 (UTC)

Images are supposed to only illustrate the text. There is no need to overexplain on the headings, unless it is something important. As for Kiev Metro, I must say I am so far behind on what I wanted to do, but I have not forgotten it. If you want to overtake me please feel free to do so.--Kuban kazak 22:32, 4 February 2006 (UTC)

Новогириво

Please explain (again) why you are reverting contrary to the existing policy. If you don't like the policy, please go ahead and push to change it; you've been around long enough to know that blindly and sneakily reverting stuff out of stubborness and without explanations isn't the way to go. You also know about this place; please document all your grievances there. Reverting is not the solution to lack of desire to get into lengthy discussions—if you have no desire and/or time to discuss, then please simply comply until such time when you do.—Ëzhiki (ërinacëus amurënsis) 13:23, 6 February 2006 (UTC)

So, any chance I can get an answer from you any time soon? Frankly, these cossack revert wars with you are getting more than annoying. I simply fail to understand why you are refusing to accept one of the policies (matter not how small) and prefer to play on my nerves instead. I know you don't like the current scheme, I know it's not perfect, which is still not a good reason to push your own, especially one that's not any better anyway. I, for one, do not like more than one of current WP policies, but I am not sneakily circumventing them because I am not willing to get involved into a lengthy process of reverting them. Your reply will be kindly appreciated.—Ëzhiki (ërinacëus amurënsis) 13:33, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

I put an answer up there already. -Kuban kazak 14:02, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

Ты мне не умничай, ты мне пальцем покажи :) Where is your answer? If you mean Wikipedia:Naming conventions (Cyrillic) (incl. talk), I don't see how any of your comment substantiate circumventing current policy. All I see is your disagreement with current practices with a couple of suggestions.—Ëzhiki (ërinacëus amurënsis) 20:51, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

На историю страницы посмотри...такое и ежу понятно :) -Kuban kazak 22:56, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

Какой страницы — в этом-то вся проблема. Anyway, I put another comment of mine at Wikipedia talk:Naming conventions (Cyrillic)#Proposal of another system of transliterating Russian for your reading pleasure.—Ëzhiki (ërinacëus amurënsis) 23:19, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

For your reading pleasure --Kuban kazak 23:41, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

Yup, that's the one I replied to and which I do not believe to be a sufficient basis for your reverts. Thanks.—Ëzhiki (ërinacëus amurënsis) 01:53, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

And I added follow-ups...not sufficient basis? How about googling the two words and have my correct version outnumbering yours by a factor of 10?

I commented on your follow-up there. Still, you have not answered another question of mine: even though you disagree with the current translit scheme, you know perfectly well it's a part of the policy. Why do you keep breaking it? Why? Why? Why? I, for example, disagree with the policy of "common English use" and would very much like to use official names of the geographic locations instead of what's someone decided to be "common" (and I excersise my right to let my viewpoint be known whenever there is a poll or discussion on that matter), but you don't see me sneaking around covertly changing names of lesser-known places in hopes that I am not going to get caught. So, again, why do you think it's acceptable?—Ëzhiki (ërinacëus amurënsis) 16:53, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

I think it is acceptable for two reasons:

1. From reading the discussion a number of protests are raised against standards and there seems to still be a lack of consensus.
2. Exceptions already exist with well known names like Kiev and Khrushchev (both lacking ys). Ok Kiev is an exception in its own right, but Russian places derived from that word are not, same metro station Kievskaya (as opposed to Kiyevskaya-Киыевская). --Kuban kazak 17:50, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

Item number 2 in your list is actually an illustration of how the "common English use" takes precedence of any transliteration systems. While there is, unfortunately, no policy as to what is considered "common English use", it is generally regarded that one variant must be used overwhelmingly more often than another. A 1:100 or in some cases even 1:1,000 difference is not necessarily "overwhelming". For obscure subjects (and metro stations' names are definitely obscure, as well as the names of the cities with small & average populations, or the names of the people who are known in narrow circles of the specialists) it is preferrable to use a consistent naming scheme rather than use a small-scale usage margin as a guideline. The reasons for that are 1) consistency is better than lack thereof; and 2) the smaller the difference margin, the more abundant counter-examples.

Well in that case shouldn't we apply a translit system which matches a more common english use? --Kuban kazak 10:05, 14 February 2006 (UTC)

To do that, it needs to be documented and accepted by the community (both Wikipedia's and academic). So far we have you pushing it with no other active supporters in sight, and I am yet to see you produce any documentation. How do you expect you system to be used if no one except you knows what it is?—Ëzhiki (ërinacëus amurënsis) 13:36, 14 February 2006 (UTC)

As for the number 1, the protests were the main reason why something like Wikipedia:Naming conventions (Cyrillic) was even started. The Wikipedia way to change something is to 1) note what's wrong; 2) complain about it; 3) consider alternatives; 4) present alternatives to the public; 4) achieve public consensus; 5) accept the change and formalize it as a guideline or a policy; and 6) make changes to conform to the new policy. We are currently at step #3: documenting current usage practices and considering alternatives. I bring it to your attention that actually making changes is way down at #6, and it is especially questionnable that you rush to perform that step when we are still so early in the process and when the consensus is clearly lacking regarding your proposal as well. Perhaps it would help if in your mind you put your proposed change against me as a complaining person, and start thinking back from step #1. Making changes before a consensus is reached is bad faith and is not Wikipedia way. Please think about it. This is the quintessential point of what I was attempting to make you understand all along.—Ëzhiki (ërinacëus amurënsis) 19:17, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

Vytautas

Glad you are a Russian patriot and that you are proud of it. Hopefully you are not a chauvinist as well. Have met a few of them lately on Wikipedia. Regarding Vytautas in the Smolensk article, my changes were to correct some grammatical flaws and to have greater consistency in the English version of Wikipedia, nothing more. Since you are an English User 5, you need to improve your usage of THE and other parts of speech in English known as ARTICLES of SPEECH. The part in the article "...the Vitaut", is confusing and gramatically incorrect (even though it links to the English article Vytautas). p.s. to "Lithuanianize" some aspects of this encyclopeadia is wrong, and occasionally needs to be questioned. Just as long as you understand that sometimes it is good and necessary too. Dr. Dan 18:57, 6 February 2006 (UTC)

Look I am not against using different names for links, but I think where appropriate a name that is relevant to the geopolitical context should be given. No offense in any case. --Kuban kazak 21:41, 6 February 2006 (UTC)

No offense taken, but I don't understand what you are trying to say, or telling me, in your remarks, as they are stated above. Especially, in regards to Vytautas and the article about Smolensk. Dr. Dan 13:57, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

Samara metro

Did something go wrong? Virtually the same text now appears twice in the article, the second (chronologically the first) version being written in very awkward English, if don't mind me saying so... Xyboi 02:19, 12 February 2006 (UTC)

Cheers for that. :) -Kuban kazak 12:47, 12 February 2006 (UTC)

Football AID 12 February - 18 February

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

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

Regarding comment on Wikipedia:TfD

Hi Kuban kazak. I saw your vote on the Russian copyright templates for deletion discussion, and I had a few comments. Please support your votes with comments relevant to the discussion, and please be more careful to observe WP:CIVIL.

Also, public domain images whose source website does not exist anymore don't have to be deleted. You can change the link to point at an archived version on The Internet Wayback Machine if one exists, or you could explain that the site is no longer around. If people assume good faith, they should trust you that the source you provided was authentic. More information is always better in these cases.

Finally, would you consider putting translations of non-English comments you've made on your talk page? This is only a polite request. I was just curious what was said in some of the above discussions, and can't understand them. Thanks! ~MDD4696 23:48, 13 February 2006 (UTC)

Metro mass deletion

Sorry about the whole "deletion thing." It was a complete accident. I was editing something (I actually forget what it was at the moment, something about extensions) and when I saved it, the Metro page came back with only "Extension Plans." I have absolutely no idea why. There were a lot of messages like "fatal error" but I think those are server problems as editing was locked for a while today. I'm really sorry about it.Geoking66 00:18, 14 February 2006 (UTC)^talk

no prob. -Kuban kazak 01:11, 14 February 2006 (UTC)

Kiev metro

you wrote: "I think I have used all of the material you gave me (Take a good look at recent developments and future plans for each line), but I seemed to lost the original message, can you re-post it, preferably here."

Sorry, what original message? Could you remind me? I forgot already :(. BTW, you may get MORE enemies at wiki for that ribbon at your talk. I just thought I mention it to you so that you reconsider. For exactly this reason I don't carry an Orange Ribbon on my userpage. But this is up to you of course. Reasonable people can get along with each other anyway. --Irpen 01:49, 14 February 2006 (UTC)

Hey if people put free Ichkeria ribbons regardless of thousands of Russians murdered by the Chechens in 1990-1994, how can supporting a party which currentely leads all opinions (and has absoloute majority in areas not far from where I live) is commiting a crime? Now you sent me an e-mail which had a file attached to it about the expansion of the system which I lost by accident. I was wondering if you can re-publish it here.--Kuban kazak 02:06, 14 February 2006 (UTC)

People who put Ichkreia ribbons are also not helping themsleves to make more wikifriends by doing so. You are free to support Party of Regions, of course. I was simply commenting on the ribbon being inflammatory. I don't care, but some of our common friends may get extra fervent and I want to avoid such things. Anyway, it is up to you. As for the article I sent you earleir, it was problably this: http://www.korrespondent.net/main/144051 --Irpen 02:17, 14 February 2006 (UTC)

My support is not to Party of Regions actually, my support is to those Ukrainians who percieve to defend their century-old ties with us, who percieve to defend their home language, their culture and their religion, and who reject the values of traditions that only three oblasts share be administered nationwide. Party of regions simply has the closest to what is defending those claims, and currentely has the majority of support of Ukraine, I simply answer to those people who live where we once lived and show my solidarity to their choice. Politically I have never voted in any election, but my Volynian wife...these people.

Anyway I could not care less what other people think about someone supporting the majority of the country's population anyhow cheers for the article, what do you think of my improvements? If all goes well the first articles about the stations should appear within a week. --Kuban kazak 02:27, 14 February 2006 (UTC)

Okhotny Ryad/Ploshchad Revolyutsii

Please also explain your stubborness regarding transliteration. I am yet to hear your reply to the discussion above. None of the points you made so far make much sense. I really do not see you acting in good faith here, which is too bad because you seem otherwise to be a valuable contributor.—Ëzhiki (ërinacëus amurënsis) 03:08, 14 February 2006 (UTC)

sigh.

Is this all you have to say? You insist on making changes right away, so, please, be answering the questions you are asked. Can I expect at least that little from you?—Ëzhiki (ërinacëus amurënsis) 13:36, 14 February 2006 (UTC)

Furthermore, if you believe my actions to be vandalism (as your edit summary suggests), I urge you to put your actions where your mouth is and report me immediately. Vandalism is a serious offense, all the more so when an admin is vandalizing; it should not go unpunished.—Ëzhiki (ërinacëus amurënsis) 04:24, 14 February 2006 (UTC)

Still waiting for a reply, by the way.—Ëzhiki (ërinacëus amurënsis) 13:36, 14 February 2006 (UTC)

Your edit summary

Also, regarding this suggestion of yours. Ukrainian, eh? And you are bloody serious, I assume? And if I will want to adopt Belorusian for the same purpose, who's going to stop me? You? But I’ll make exact same points you did.

Seriously, you do realize that Ukrainian is a different language governed by different rules, don't you? What's more, if you insist on using their system (called "Ukrainian National transliteration", by the way) for Russian names, you'd better wait until the Ukrainian government comes up with a "Ukrainian National transliteration of Russian", at which point I'll be more than happy to accept it as an alternative.

Now, you want me to start arguing for removing -yi for Ukrainian. Unfortunately, I cannot, and I see no reason why I should. You see, they use a real system, one that has a name, is well-documented and used by both government bodies and in academic circles. What you use for Russian is your wishful thinking based on observations. Perhaps Ukrainian names would indeed be better with a different system, but I don't know because my knowledge of Ukrainian is limited and I may not know what works best for them. Russian GOST would, of course, be somewhat equivalent to their system (both documentation-wise and usage-wise), but you already heard what Anglophones have to say about GOST—names transliterated with GOST make little sense to them. There is still nothing preventing you from offering that solution to the community, but for crying out loud, for umpteenth time I am trying to tell you that in order to make a change you need to propose it first and have it accepted. Current system may very well be challenged by you and some other people, but it was accepted at some time in the past. If you want to unseat it, please follow the procedures, OK? Otherwise I will regretfully have to seek mediation, because this all is going nowhere. If you insist on wasting my time explaining you obvious things which you ignore anyway, so be it.—Ëzhiki (ërinacëus amurënsis) 13:36, 14 February 2006 (UTC)

Well adopting the equivelant of Belarusian lacinka would be alright, since it does really offer a real alternative to any translit system, and was historically used for Russian translits including metro. Now Ukrainian maybe a different language but its phonetics and sounds are identical to Russian as is 95% of its alphabet (with exception of Ї and Г (Ґ for G) and different letters for identical sounds: И/Ы and I/И; Є/Э) apart from those few letters identical translit systems can safetly be applied. Oh and STOP BEING SO HYPOCRITICAL of EVERYTHING I DO!!! Надоел уже. --Kuban kazak 13:50, 14 February 2006 (UTC)

So, I, who am merely trying to enforce a current convention or at least to make you understand that in order to have it changed (or at least introduce exceptions for metro stations, if you so wish) you actually have to work, am being hypocrytical, but you, who is simply reverting back to an invented system that you can't even document, are not? I am sorry, but I don't see how I can reason with you any further. I will be filing a mediation request against you shortly. Let others judge us.—Ëzhiki (ërinacëus amurënsis) 14:23, 14 February 2006 (UTC)

A mediation request has been filed

A request for mediation has been filed with the Mediation Committee in regard to issues surrounding Romanization of the Russian language. Mediation Committee procedure requires that all parties to a mediation be notified of the meditaion, and indicate an agreement to mediate within fourteen days. Please review the request at Wikipedia:Requests for mediation#Romanization of the Russian language, and indicate your agreement or refusal to mediate. If you are unfamiliar with mediation, please refer to Wikipedia:Mediation or contact a member of the Mediation Committee.—Ëzhiki (ërinacëus amurënsis) 15:41, 14 February 2006 (UTC)

I am really sorry that I had to do it, but I take Wikipedia policies quite seriously and, as an administrator, have a duty to enforce them.—Ëzhiki (ërinacëus amurënsis) 15:52, 14 February 2006 (UTC)

Fair enough, have it your way, but do not blame me for not expressing my opinions on the translit section for wiki. I have made them 100% clear there, and will accelarate the slow pace of progress there with this mediation, so actually I am sort of grateful. --Kuban kazak 13:12, 15 February 2006 (UTC)

Glad to hear that. Please accept this mediation at Wikipedia:Requests for mediation#Romanization of the Russian language; it will not be considered by the Mediation Committee unless you indicate your agreement in the "Parties' agreement to mediate" section. You may also need to restate your views or provide relevant diffs to a mediator once the case is accepted. Thank you.—Ëzhiki (ërinacëus amurënsis) 13:42, 15 February 2006 (UTC)

Moscow Metro

What do you think? --Ghirla | talk 08:36, 15 February 2006 (UTC)

Bakharev is wrong.--Kuban kazak 13:18, 15 February 2006 (UTC)

So, the phrasing used in Moscow article is correct? --Ghirla | talk 15:41, 15 February 2006 (UTC)

Pretty much...-Kuban kazak 13:29, 16 February 2006 (UTC)

№

By the way, what's your grudge against the number sign (#)? I would think you know that "№" is not used in the English language.—Ëzhiki (ërinacëus amurënsis) 01:45, 16 February 2006 (UTC)

Yes it is used. -Kuban kazak 09:03, 16 February 2006 (UTC)

Ah, I see. Bloody British trying to be different again :)—Ëzhiki (ërinacëus amurënsis) 13:24, 16 February 2006 (UTC)

Oi don't insult the source of english language you yankeestanis :)-Kuban kazak 13:27, 16 February 2006 (UTC)

At least we are evolving :)—Ëzhiki (ërinacëus amurënsis) 13:36, 16 February 2006 (UTC)

cetrain type of jokes

Slushay, tormozi! Some people take your jokes seriously. This is not the first time I am asking you to not aggravate some short-tempered guys here. Some people are sensitive to certain things and don't expect any sense of humor from them. Just do some editing, all right? I will be glad to help. For the user armed with certian attitude, it is tempting to extrapolate your comments (as you saw already), and bring allegations of conspiracies and it's time-consuming every time to prove that black is black and white is white to someone whose ability to see clearly is impaired by emotions. As for strangers, they just come by accidentally and notice "Oh! Controversy! Bad, I don't like controversies!"

Irpen, ya ne protiv ostanovitsya, and before yesterday though that someone did cool down, however what is happening here is not a case of jokes or beer discussions; I am actually myself considering launching a complaint because being insulted on a daily basis is not why I came here to do. This is a direct violation of WP rules and the user in question accuses me of things that he is performing on a daily basis. --Kuban Cossack 00:07, 18 February 2006 (UTC)

Please don't start the "What did I do?" thing! It is easy to get you lose your temper over certain things and same applies to others. Also, please no "manhood" stuff at talk pages. Let's reserve this for beer conversations. If you want to make jokes about someone, please use user:Irpen for that :). That said, I will get to your Crimean article when I have time but I can't promise how soon. Take it easy! --Irpen 00:01, 18 February 2006 (UTC)

I added lnks to consitituion btw on Crimea. --Kuban Cossack 00:07, 18 February 2006 (UTC)

Kazak! Vsyo! Hvatit! Nu poslushay menya hot' raz! -Vsyo, brek! --Irpen 16:28, 18 February 2006 (UTC)

Also, pls see my email! --Irpen 16:49, 18 February 2006 (UTC)

You first

Perhaps you would like to explain why you changed sourced information from the same article earlier, and then disregarded the neutral point of view policy at the same time. Gentgeen 22:57, 19 February 2006 (UTC)

By all means. First of all information on how the thousands of Belarusians were forced into the Unia can be easily found. Second the persectution of Belarusian Language during the interbellum Poland is also a sourced fact. Finally the numbers of how many Belarusians willfully returned to Orthodoxy are also 100% genuine. Why did you remove them, that is another question. Finally the Uniate church was terminated from the inside via efforts of Bishop Joseph Semashko. --Kuban Cossack 23:03, 19 February 2006 (UTC)

Mediation

Greetings,

You have requested mediation at Wikipedia:Requests for mediation/Romanization of the Russian language. The chair of the committee has asked if I'd take the case. This would be my first case since joining the Mediation Committee, however I have been an editor for over a year and an administrator for about seven months. I have no knowledge or opinion of this matter, shall be fair to both sides. Please respond here to let me know if I am acceptable as a mediator. Cheers, -Will Beback 09:01, 20 February 2006 (UTC)

I accept, thank you. --Kuban Cossack 23:55, 20 February 2006 (UTC)

Good. Could you please send me an email, using the link from my user page? In the email I'd like you to briefly outline your issues. Then I'd like you to briefly outline the issues of the other party, describing them as you believe the other party sees them. Lastly, please briefly decribe the outcome that we should work towards. Thanks, -Will Beback 09:31, 21 February 2006 (UTC)

If you've sent me an email I haven't received it. This is an important step in mediation. Your attention is appreciated. Please let me know if there is any problem. Cheers, -Will Beback 09:48, 22 February 2006 (UTC)

3rr on Belarusian Byzantine Catholic Church

I've blocked you [13] for WP:3R on Belarusian Byzantine Catholic Church. You clearly did this hastily, or you wouldn't have made edits like [14] or [15].

On 3rr, you said Moreover the 4th and 5th reverts if you compare with the first three third are not exactly the same, in fact I took note of the comments and attempted to NPOV the article with the 4th... please slow down. Read WP:3RR carefully if you're going to skate this close to the line. Oh, and don't label content disputes as "reverting vandalism".

William M. Connolley 20:03, 20 February 2006 (UTC).

Acutally if one looks at history, then a similar story is painted as the previous case. On the 22 January I edited the page, expanded it and added lots of sourced material ([16]) . For nearly a month no-one has approached the article. On the 18th of February a an anon reverted all of my additions with no explanation whatsover [17] . As this page was on my watchlist, I reverted it for the anon offered no explanation and refused to discuss content. On the 19th Gengeen comes along, again no discussion, no explanation [18] . Suspecting heavy sockpuppetry I reverted it once again. The history which you link to is of accidentally rollbacking the wrong version [19], which I corrected immeidately [20]. Once again the same anon reverted my version [21] claiming that the sourced material is wrong and dubious (fair enough but according to the WP:Assume good faith rules it is worth to discuss these issues prior to reverting and since the opposite party(s) offered none explanation whatsoever I even started a talk page aimed to discuss these issues. [22].

Me and Gentgeen begin discussing (I must say the tone that he set there reminds me of anything but the WP:Assume good faith rules which the user claims to adhere to). Simultaneously I revert the article [23] After Gengeen's 2nd revert [24] and with already quite a few issues on the discussion page raised. My 4th edit was an attempt to NPOV the article and disqulifies it to be a revert (compare with the third [25]) Gentgeen reverts in quite a rood fashion [26] That is a third revert btw so if anything then I would expect him to also share the 24 hour block if I got blocked for three reverts. --Kuban Cossack 20:28, 20 February 2006 (UTC)

I also would like to ask you, to check wether User:Gentgeen's IP is by any chance similar to №84.22.47.114--Kuban Cossack 20:37, 20 February 2006 (UTC)

In my judgement, you have 4 reverts; Gentgeen has 3. 3 isn't good, but it doesn't trigger the rule. If you're prepared to accept WP:3RR and accept that in future "revert" has quite a broad definition, I'll unblock you. Gentgeen is an admin, so if he is using IP socks he is being very naughty; but I will put a request on the checkuser page. William M. Connolley 21:59, 20 February 2006 (UTC)

Well it depends if you mean revert to the same version then its 3 and 1. If its purely reverts regardless what to than 4. Anyway I do accept the rules, but I must say your admin Gentgeen should show a more considerate and set a better example if one reads the talk page on that article. Actually I was going to propose a mediation...--Kuban Cossack 22:52, 20 February 2006 (UTC)

I was hoping for something a bit more unequivocal, but I shall take a risk and unblock you. *Please* use this wisely; Irpen comment is very sensible all round. William M. Connolley 23:35, 20 February 2006 (UTC).

No need to worry, I do agree with everything that Irpen has said myself. Thank you very much.--Kuban Cossack 23:38, 20 February 2006 (UTC)

You should now be unblocked. Please make a quick test edit and reply here if you're not unblocked, cos I'm just off to bed... William M. Connolley 23:40, 20 February 2006 (UTC)

And are now even less blocked :-) William M. Connolley 23:53, 20 February 2006 (UTC)

Works perfectely, thank you again...Good night. --Kuban Cossack 23:53, 20 February 2006 (UTC)

Sorry: I promised to list it on checkuser, but on reflection I'm not going to: the IP 84.22.47.114 resolves [27] to Kosovo/Pristina; Gentgeen is in California; there is no point getting checkuser; there is a backlog there. The page is Wikipedia:Requests for CheckUser if you ever need to ask. Not just admins can make the check. William M. Connolley 22:11, 20 February 2006 (UTC).

Kazak, let me add my 2 cents. For now, I take no position in your dispute with Genteen. I didn't read the details of the dispute. I also haven't met Genteen in my life and I would be reluctant to make my judgement about an editor based on a single incident. That said, please keep the 3RR firmly in mind. There are even some trollish users whose tactic is specifically to provoke their opponents whom they consider "adversaries" into three revert violation and promptly report them at 3RR boards. Many admins who stop by at the 3RR board don't have time to study the complaint with the due diligence and impose a block, causing exactly the aggravation that was an intent of the provocateur. I did not study the case specifically, I am not saying that Genteen was acting maliciously and I make no judgement amount William's decision to impose a block. I simply advise you to not ever approach the 3RR and, instead, ask others to look at the article. Reread the WP:3RR page. Finally, please take the block lightly. 3RR is in no way a "punishment" of any kind and is implemented simply to stop an edit war rather than sanction the user. Cheers, --Irpen 22:17, 20 February 2006 (UTC)

Grozny

No, it's NOT "confirmed fact", and "genocide" is not just a criminals at work (criminals killed, raped and robbed people also at Moscow, and no one says of "genocide" in Moscow - check out definition of genocide), while exodus of Russians from elsewhere of ex-Soviet Union to Russia was and still is commonplace (and now even encouraged by the Russian governemnt, who counts 20 million ethnic Russians to return to their homeland) - even if they're often treated as an "illegal aliens" with practically no rights.

Also there are still some ethnic Russians in Grozny, with no help from the government (even their church bombed by Russian aircrafat in 1995 was still in ruins when I heard last time). Most of civilians who died in 1994-96 and many of these who died in the second war were ethnic Russians, too poor or old to move elsewhere and with no families in a villages to stay there (like how many of their Chechen neighbors did) and the heaviest devastation was in the ethnic Russian majority downtown.

So, please don't push anything what is not even a Russian government's official propaganda. Thank you. And as we are talking about this, check out situation of Russians in for example "friendly" Turkmenistan. --Kocoum 10:41, 22 February 2006 (UTC)

"Genocide"

In fact, the only episode of real genocide in XXth century Chechnya happened in 1994, when at result of the deportation by NKVD 1/3 to half of the entire Chechen population died during 2-day brutal round-up, transport in an Auschwitz-style trains, or a first years in exile.

No single Chechen was allowed to remain in their homeland, even Communist party dignitaries went on the last train - the only difference a passeneger one. Even their cemeteries, books and other cultural heritage was destroyed (additional practice called cultural genocide). Obviously it was aimed at destroying Chechen nation as a whole (and several others, because it wasn't the only wholesale deportation of '40s - several other nations were also targetted).

Another would be part of the Stalin's war on "kulaks" in case of Terek Cossacks in 1930s (forced famine), but it's usually taken in context of the extended Ukrainian genocide. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Kocoum (talk • contribs)

"disturbance"

May I suggest you add WP:RCU to your watchlist and if your friend has guts to leave a checkuser request there, please promptly post a follow up note that you don't object. Because even an invoking of m:Checkuser is somewhat a privacy intrusion (the access is given only to less than a dozen people), your no objection may speed things up removing an obstacle that even an investigation requires some merit in the case to begin with. --Irpen 17:55, 22 February 2006 (UTC)

On the contrary I might actually add myself there prior to him doing so. --Kuban Cossack 19:22, 22 February 2006 (UTC)

K.k. self-requests for RCU are usually rejected as a WP:Point. Kelly Martin is busy enough checking too many requests. The way to go, it to request the accuser to post am RCU request to follow up on his accusations. The lack of action speaks for itself. --Irpen 19:43, 22 February 2006 (UTC)

Fair enough. --Kuban Cossack 19:46, 22 February 2006 (UTC)

KIIS map

Please finish the talk before you remove! Muumi 20:44, 22 February 2006 (UTC) Oops, sorry, wrong user... Muumi 21:15, 22 February 2006 (UTC)

Grozny

Sorry, man, but you broke the 3RR as well. Have to block you too.—Ëzhiki (ërinacëus amurënsis) 00:22, 23 February 2006 (UTC)

Article had an NPOV tag which was removed twice. My revert was revert to origimal versionwhich stayed unchanged for months.

I saw that. Had you only restored the NPOV tag, I would have overlooked it. You, however, reverted the content along with it, which brings your total of reverts in 24 hours to four.—Ëzhiki (ërinacëus amurënsis) 00:28, 23 February 2006 (UTC)

After reporting the violation and restoring the vandalised article. Нe будь сукой.--Kuban Cossack 00:30, 23 February 2006 (UTC)

Moreover nobody reported me to AN/3RR. --Kuban Cossack 00:33, 23 February 2006 (UTC)

No need to call me that. I am merely enforcing the rule. It is nothing personal. I'd block my mother for 3RR if she violated it :) Furthermore, content disputes do not fall under definition of vandalism. Also, one does not need to be reported to AN/3RR to be blocked—such blocks can be made at admin's discretion on the spot. If you want to contend my block, I can bring it to other admins' attention at AN.—Ëzhiki (ërinacëus amurënsis) 00:35, 23 February 2006 (UTC)

Kazak, ne rugaysya! Chill out and take a 24h break. When you get a user-reverter, ask others to look at it and just insist on the tag. But be careful, who to ask. I mean if you ask someone simply because s/he cooperated with you on an unrelated issue, you might place them in an uncomfortable situation in which they are uncomfortab;e to refuse but not interested enough to engage, this facing a painful choise. Simply don't approach 3RR. Have patience. --Irpen 00:40, 23 February 2006 (UTC)

In that case I will ask for the time span to be modified to a few hours (ну блин на страницой работал в это время, ну имей совесть). --Kuban Cossack 00:39, 23 February 2006 (UTC)

Ирпень прямо мои мысли прочитал :) Всё понимаю, но не могу разблокировать. Не люблю двойные стандарты.—Ëzhiki (ërinacëus amurënsis) 00:42, 23 February 2006 (UTC)

Ладно буду считать как месть за метро. Все я пошел на ru:вики. --Kuban Cossack 00:49, 23 February 2006 (UTC)

К метро это не имеет никакого отношения. Хочешь верь, хочешь не верь.—Ëzhiki (ërinacëus amurënsis) 01:03, 23 February 2006 (UTC)

sockpuppetry

За Алексея уже проголосовал. Kazak 01:38, 23 February 2006 (UTC)

На вон еще напиши тут. Да кстати если мы действительно сок-папиты, как это так что я заблокирован в 3РР, а ты нет? Повесь это там (мой блок через несколько часов прекаращаеться). --Kuban Cossack 18:43, 23 February 2006 (UTC)

Что именно повесить? Обвинение какое-то абсурдное, складывается впечатление что этому Украинэду просто делать нечего. Kazak 23:49, 23 February 2006 (UTC)

Найди там его предсказания и скажи что мол вот я заблакирован а ты пишешь себе и пишешь (кстати блок вот-вот кончиться). А про все остальное проверь ящик свой.--Kuban Cossack 00:06, 24 February 2006 (UTC)

FYI. --Irpen 03:11, 25 February 2006 (UTC)

Another advise

Kuban kazak, мой тебе совет. На Ёжиков не сердись. В гадостях он замечен не был. В block history ничего унизительного нет. Даже у Микки был блок. На Ukrained сердиться тоже, толку мало. С ним всё равно вместе работать, и, кстати, по статьям человек ведет себя разумно. Pедактирования в основном приемлемые и хамство с talk pages в статьи не заходит. В войнах не воюй и реверты считай. Если статья вопиюща настолько, что ждать нельзя пока другие посмотрят, а откат приведет к блоку, повесь POV с добросовестным объяснением. Я наверное отдохну ненадолго, может и на пару дней, после этого RfA, так что пожалуйста следи пока за собой внимательнее. А про метро, трамваи и троллейбусы мы еще напишем. Вот тебе кстати линки, вдруг не знаешь?:

• "Seventy years of Kiev trolleybus", Zerkalo Nedeli (the Mirror Weekly), December 10-16, 2005, in Russian and in Ukrainian.
• In memory of Kiev trams.

Cheers, --Irpen 00:25, 24 February 2006 (UTC)

Would you please-please-please not provoke your opponents because you only radicalize them this way! What you now got is another Wikipedian joining the group of users whose userpages support the dismemberment of Russia. And it will get only worse!

Oh, and while at it, remember what I told you about your own ribbon? Here we go now. --Irpen 22:02, 24 February 2006 (UTC)

Now that you have showed me the image, of what this over-ukrained person did, I am actually laughing. --Kuban Cossack 22:09, 24 February 2006 (UTC)

That was not my intention. But seriously! Как два петуха! Что один, что второй! And note, that here, unlike there, you are dealing with a productive editor. So, cool it off, will ya? --Irpen 22:14, 24 February 2006 (UTC)

Mate, if he wants to put this on his userspace, fair enough, I can't blame him for doing so, it is his userspace. I mean if he wants to put a swastika or Bandera on it as well then fair enough, because the majority of the civilised society will judge him accordingly especially when they view the facts of either massacre of Poles by UPA, or Russians by Dudaev --Kuban Cossack 22:19, 24 February 2006 (UTC)

Kazak, wheather your position is correct or not on issues (and it happends both ways), the inflamatory part of your behavor brings nothing but bad blood and provokes others. Just don't do it no matter how right you feel yoursef. --Irpen 19:15, 9 March 2006 (UTC)

Look I know that I am not a saint, and I know that I make mistakes, however I do find it quite disturbing that most of the people who are provoked are responding w/o any logical reasoning whatsoever, like the Metro map, if Petriv took the map and did what Ezhiki has done to it, I would not have opposed one way or another and the conflict would have escalated. Sturbodness turn people into the worst paroda. History of Christianity in Ukraine is a briliant example of how he and Yakudza, despite me reporting as a copyright vio, despite Bakharev locking the article and laying down the rules strictly...I was appalled more than I was for this fellow. In the end it took me and that anon five minutes of rewriting the passage that they spend two days reinstalling about at least 10 times. In such an atmosphere do you honetsly believe that it is impossible to avoid conflict with this detskiy sad, especially now that they have been joined by one who returned from a an unfortunately not-lengthy enough suspension? --Kuban Cossack 19:37, 9 March 2006 (UTC)

I don't think avoiding the conflict is possible, but it is possible to reduce the conflict if you don't do things that you know are wrong, like abusive edit summaries, OT sensitive issues and other things you know. I explained at metro and christianity talk that we will easier find the common ground if we stop these rush edits. That other didn't took my advise was unhelpful, you are correct about that. But you going out to annoy them made things only worse. You are not a saint, you a right. Time to start changing. Don't you see that I am trying too? Please no rattraps and arbitration threeats in summaries. Please no off-topic language issues at talk. Don't call anyone names. Not that others are right but this is no excuse. --Irpen 19:42, 9 March 2006 (UTC)

Well in that case you leave me no choice but to offer you to return to the Christianity article.--Kuban Cossack 19:52, 9 March 2006 (UTC)

You don't need to ask me. This article is very high on my to do list. If you check, you will see that I wrote a large part of it as well as an entire Filaret's article. --Irpen 20:02, 9 March 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for your voting!

Thanks!

Hi, thanks for your voting on my RFA. It has finished with the result 88/14/9, and I am promoted. I am really overwhelmed with the amount of support I have got. With some of you we have edited many articles as a team, with some I had bitter arguments in the past, some of you I consider to be living legends of Wikipedia and some nicks I in my ignorance never heard before. I love you all and I am really grateful to you.

If you feel I can help you or Wikipedia as a human, as an editor or with my newly acquired cleaning tools, then just ask and I will be happy to assist. If you will feel that I do not live up to your expectation and renegade on my promises, please contact me. Maybe it was not a malice but just ignorance or a short temper. Thank you very mach, once more! abakharev 07:34, 24 February 2006 (UTC)

Belarussian language

I protected the page per request. However, please do not refer to legit edits as "vandalism". Thanks. --Woohookitty^{(cat scratches)} 00:47, 25 February 2006 (UTC)

Thank you. --Kuban Cossack 00:50, 25 February 2006 (UTC)