User talk:Kuban kazak/2006 2

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Talk:Slavic Europe[edit]

Molobo is militant again. --Ghirla -трёп- 15:33, 2 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Lviv[edit]

Just to let you know I reverted your last edit to that article, as I thought the previous version was more neutral. Petros471 15:52, 5 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Most of the western WWII sources actually use the term liberated.[1] At the beginning of September 1942 there were still around 65,000 Jews in the ghetto, among them around 15,000 "illegals". Some Jews hid in the sewers of Lviv and with help from local Poles survived until liberation. The heavily guarded ghetto was surrounded by barbed wire... --Kuban Cossack 15:59, 5 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Western: Wikipedia aims to be neutral for all people :) I can't say I'm an expert on the subject; I just picked it up while on RC patrol, so I'll follow the WP:1RR on this one. Petros471 16:31, 5 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Mediation[edit]

Hi! Have you heard anything yet from our mediator? I am curious, because I have not.—Ëzhiki (ërinacëus amurënsis) 16:19, 6 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Funny enough I have not either. --Kuban Cossack 17:01, 6 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Well, I tried this... Let's see what happens.—Ëzhiki (ërinacëus amurënsis) 19:34, 7 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Just an FIY. As it is easy to guess, "one of the parties" was me.—Ëzhiki (ërinacëus amurënsis) 23:01, 23 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Spasibo...[edit]

for beeing accomodating [2], [3], [4] :). I really appreciate your agreeing not to push this. --Irpen 03:37, 7 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Da nezashto.--Kuban Cossack 03:40, 7 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

My map of Kiev Metro[edit]

Please stop vandalizing Kiev Metro page ([5], [6]) by attempting to put Russian language map instead of the official map in the Ukrainian language. Ukrainian language is the official language of Ukraine. Ukraine, and Kiev in particular do not want[citation needed] to be a part of Russia. Neither they desire to use Russian language[citation needed] over their mothers' Ukrainian language. All world, including English speakers, and including the official Russia recognize Ukraine, Kiev, Ukrainian language and Kiev metro stations[citation needed] in their Ukrainian language. The Wikipedia is not a tool to express your Russian chauvinism[citation needed]. Anonymous, 17:35, 7 March 2006 (UTC)

First of all please avoid personal insults and generalisations for a country where you don't even live (your IP - [7]). Second the map is not vandalism especially since more than 80% of that article is written by me. Finally this is not Uk:wiki this is en:wiki, and for english users Russian or Ukrainian does not matter (Actually I am working on an English version of itP. English users will however raise eyebrows on maps that have stations in the middle of rivers. Hence, until I upload the English version (or would you be kind enough to that instead of trolling on that artilce) my map stays. Any more reverts and I will ask the admin to lock the article. --Kuban Cossack 17:48, 7 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Kaliningrad[edit]

Please be more careful when reverting. 3RR applies to all. By the way, Molobo and Kosmak, fresh from the blocks, lead a crusade against Kaliningrad, adding Polish names to the lead. In the light of these developments, isn't it time to put Варшава in the lead of Warsaw and insert Cyrillic spellings into articles on every other Polish city that has been part of Imperial Russia for more than a century? --Ghirla -трёп- 18:53, 7 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed. Tell here is a nice map [8] for reference--Kuban Cossack 19:36, 7 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

3RR violation at Kiev Metro[edit]

Hi, you violated WP:3RR at Kiev Metro. I have blocked you for 24 hours. Please feel free to return after your block expires, but take your differences to the talk page instead of starting pointless revert wars. Cheers, —Ruud 00:12, 8 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Actually compare the versions, they are not reverts.--Kuban Cossack 00:14, 8 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Also have a look I have expressed differences on talk pages, yet nobody seems to respond to them. [9]. --Kuban Cossack 00:16, 8 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Please see WP:REVERT, reverts don't have to be exactly identical. —Ruud 00:17, 8 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

In that case only the 17:03, 7 March 2006; 17:27, 7 March 2006 are pure revets;

17:53, 7 March 2006 is an edit; as is the next one: 18:21, 7 March 2006;

Third revert would have been Revision as of 22:47, 7 March 2006. Yet this one: 00:09, 8 March 2006 is still an edit. That means that now 3 reverts are = to four.? --Kuban Cossack 00:24, 8 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

18:21, 7 March 2006 was a revert. —Ruud 00:27, 8 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
No it was not look at the bottom of the article. --Kuban Cossack 00:29, 8 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The fact that you added some more information, doesn't change the fact that you also reverted the image. —Ruud 00:32, 8 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
However that still does not count like as a full article revert as the versions are different from each other. I would like some more opinion on this from a third party, (preferbly who also has admin powers). --Kuban Cossack 00:36, 8 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
It does not take a full article revert to get blocked for 3RR, you should probably be aware of that by now. You know, your behavior is quite disappointing. You could have just as easily created an amended English version of the image instead of the Russian one. You, however, still made it in Russian and now insist it is better because of the "station-on-the-water" issue, aggravating already aggravated Ukrainian users. If that is not trolling, I don't know what is. I edited the Ukrainian image (fixing the "underwater station") so the article can be reverted to it. Hopefully that'll quite people down. Let's now hope that you'll follow on your promise and eventually produce the English version.—Ëzhiki (ërinacëus amurënsis) 00:45, 8 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Still I would like to the rules where such an edit is acceptable as a revert. Otherwise I will have to ask you to unblock me.--Kuban Cossack 00:47, 8 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
As per WP:3RR, reverting... applies to undoing the actions of another editor in whole or part, not necessarily taking a previous version from history and editing that.—Ëzhiki (ërinacëus amurënsis) 00:56, 8 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Yet apart from that, that 4th revert had a text input an original edit. I am still not convinced.
When your block expires, go ahead and ask for outside opinion at WP:AN. I trust that you will find other admins' interpretation of 3RR to be quite broad.—Ëzhiki (ërinacëus amurënsis) 01:51, 8 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Vydubichi is still underwater.--Kuban Cossack 00:49, 8 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Vydubichi ne zametil. Popravlyu.—Ëzhiki (ërinacëus amurënsis) 00:56, 8 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Done.—Ëzhiki (ërinacëus amurënsis) 01:51, 8 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

History of Christianity in Ukraine[edit]

I have semiprotected the article, to stop sock-pupeeting. I am not convinced that the full protection is required. abakharev 02:39, 9 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Minsk[edit]

This was me who edited Minsk over the past couple of days. Now I have finally registered. Thanks.

Renaissance in Poland[edit]

Molobo and AndriyK attacked the article. From such mysterious edits I gather that they try to assert that the Poles' mission in Eastern Europe was to civilize the barbarian Muscovites. Time to check the trolls. --Ghirla -трёп- 12:12, 14 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yerevan Metro[edit]

Hello, I've edited the Yerevan Metro to make it more readable to English natives (I'm British, and you seem to prefer British English spellings. I hope you like what I have done. Do change bits if I've misinterpreted what you have tried to say. I've changed the tense to perfect / pluperfect in most of the article because it makes it sound a lot more, well, English. I have a few questions because I am a bit confused by what you have written in English: - was the official name given to the Metro during planning stages Rapid Tram or just Tram; because you've refered to both titles in the article. Also, where you have the anecdote to Brezhnev saying We need Metro In English we would put an article - We need a Metro system - using metro on its own, as you have done in the article stylistically is a little strange, because "Metro" can be used as a brand or a trademark in English - we have a newspaper called Metro in Britain, the underground railway system in Newcastle upon Tyne is officially known as "Metro" and there are lots of other examples like this. I haven't changed the Brezhnev speech because I don't know what he said in Russian / Armenian and I couldn't translate it even if I did! So I have put "metro system" to make it sound more pleasing to a native's ear. What do you think? --Luccent 13:23, 20 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Suggestion[edit]

What a pity this data is absent from Wikipedia. --Ghirla -трёп- 18:07, 21 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hello[edit]

Hello. It's always pleasant to see Russian contributors in Wikipedia. Burann 19:21, 23 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Mediation & metro[edit]

Yes, I intend to proceed with the mediation. The reason for it, however, is not to establish whose transliteration system is right or better, it is to upheld existing rules until such time as they are amended. If current rules mandated using "q" for a soft sign, that's what I would be enforcing now. If that approach of mine seems a bit excessively bureaucratic to you, I am sorry, but that's how I understand my admin duties. With all that in mind, I'm more than open to listening to your or anyone else's suggestions at WP:CYR. Now, as for your questions:

  • WP:RUS currently requires using "y" for a soft sign followed by a non-iotated vowel (it is conventional);
  • I don't remember what happened to "Ki(y)evskaya"; most likely I missed it when I was making changes. The reason why I insist that particular word and words similar to it are spelled differently ("Kiev" vs. "Kiyevskaya"; "Dostoevsky" vs. "Dostoyevskaya", etc.) is due to the fact that these are different entities the names of which are governed by different rules. Kiev is a city in Ukraine, which is very well-known to English speakers, and its name is governed by the "use common English" rule. Kiyevskaya, on the other hand, is a relatively obscure (compared to the city, anyway) metro station, for which "common English use" rule would not apply, and which, therefore, falls under transliteration provisions. The latter mandate the "ye" spelling for "е" following a vowel. Same goes for Dostoevsky (a well-known writer) and Dostoyevskaya (a little-known station). I am not asking you to agree with me, but I hope you at least see what my logic is. Perhaps the issue of derivative names can be covered separately at WP:CYR, but to me it would just mean complicating already over-complicated rules.
  • As for the metro pictures, I would be more than happy to help, but that would require me to take a trip to Moscow, which I was not planning to do any time soon :) I live in the U.S. Midwest, actually. I am sure, though, that if you ask around at the Russian portal, you'll find some Muscovites who would agree to help. You did a great job on the metro overall, though—pretty impressive!

Hope this answers your questions. Please do not hesitate to contact me if you need anything else.—Ëzhiki (ërinacëus amurënsis) 14:16, 24 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Take a look[edit]

Wikipedia:Requests for mediation/Romanization of the Russian language[edit]

I've received a request to reassign this mediation. As it has been open for some time without any activity, I'm asking that the parties re-confirm that they are still interested. Please do so on Wikipedia:Requests for mediation/Romanization of the Russian language. Thanks! Essjay Talk • Contact 01:56, 31 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Vitebsk[edit]

You seem to take interest in the Belarussian subjects. If you have time, please help this guy. --Ghirla -трёп- 17:52, 31 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Насчет статьи про Быкова. Я понимаю что "Vitebsk" - стандартная и общепринятая транслитерация, но в данной статье используется исключительно Латинка. Поэтому там "Viciebsk". Иначе неразбериха получится если разные названия будут в одной статье передаваться по-русски и по-белорусски, да еще и с разными транслитами. Cossack 23:19, 3 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Тогда уж давая Vitsebsk.--Kuban Cossack 00:33, 4 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Да пусть останется там Латинка, как по мне она красивее. А потом "Vitsebsk" выглядит как "Віцэбск" а не "Віцебск". Cossack
It is not a case of personal opinion but a case of correct usage, Lacinka's status as a model of Belarusian translits is disputed. --Kuban Cossack 13:36, 6 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Тогда нужно пользоваться лишь одной системой транслита в данной статье. То ли исключительно латинкой, то ли исключительно какой-то другой системой. А то если сейчас в ней писать "Vitebsk", это будет выглядеть в контексте статьи как "Вітэбск".Cossack

Yerevan[edit]

I don't. I do go to Yerevan several times a year though. I don't have a Commons account, why don't you move the images there? I have two exterior shots of Sasuntsi Davit and Yeritasardakan, the former isn't very good. I'll get the logo and the map along with more pictures next time I visit Yerevan (most likely in August).--Eupator 20:04, 1 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]


Romanization of the Russian Language Mediation[edit]

Hi there, I've been assigned your mediation case. What we need to do now is firstly decide via what means we wish to conduct the case. We have three options: via Wikipedia, via e-mail or via and IRC channel. I would favour the wikipedia route but am happy to do any of the three. Ilook forward to hearing from you. --Wisden17 13:24, 4 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

If wikipedia suits you, it suits me. I really do not mind one way or the other. --Kuban Cossack 13:26, 4 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The mediation has been opened. I have left a few initial questions which I would be interested to hear answers to. The mediation will take place on Wikipedia talk:Requests for mediation/Romanization of the Russian language. --Wisden17 16:45, 5 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

names again[edit]

Kazak, I offer you to follow a simple rule that most people agree on. Those alternative language placenames should be listed in the lead that are used in English texts (as such, for Chernivtsi the Romanian name is clearly relevant) and all names follow the native name in the alphabetic order of their languages (the native name goes first in any case). Don't delete names excessively and don't put the Russian name necessarily the second in order. RU follows PL and RO in the alphabet. Generally, make it a rule, I suggest, if you go to the article to correct Kyiv for Kiev or whatever name for another, do something else for the article too. If everyone does that, the revert wars over names will have a positive side effect. Regards, --Irpen 22:50, 4 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

In that case would that certainly elevate Russian over Polish on Volhynian cities and towns (not necessary Bukovian, and I did not raise the Russian name over the Romainian btw)?
Also what is your opinion on the revert war of Lutsk?--Kuban Cossack 22:53, 4 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Polish trolls[edit]

What do you think? --Ghirla -трёп- 09:46, 7 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Meters vs Feet[edit]

Hi! I left your revert of 230 feet to 70 meters alone, in the Alexander Nevsky Cathedral article. Please remember, however, many people in Great Britain, Canada, and the U.S., have difficulty with the metric system. We are slowly adapting to it. Since the article is in English Wikipedia, it didn't seem an inappropriate edit. As it stands, there's enough polemics involved in the article and talk pages, anyway. A liitle further down in the article, the 230 feet are mentioned again, so everybody can sleep better. Best wishes. Dr. Dan 19:32, 7 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Rapid transit in the former Soviet Union[edit]

I fixed the noinclude tag. Sorry about that. Circeus 17:32, 9 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ways scheme of Aleksandrovsky Sad[edit]

Здрям! Увидел, что ты поспешил эскиз путей АлСада сразу в статью поставить, я перерисовал то же самое в векторной графике (правда там русские буквы, могу сделать на выбор или без надписей или с английскими, если скажешь что и где написать.) И вообще прнимаются комментарии и пожелания. --Morpheios Melas 10:32, 10 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Сделай вторую версию с англискими названиями и все...--Kuban Cossack 23:55, 10 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Done Image:Aleksandrovsky Sad (Ways)(EN).svg --Morpheios Melas 07:17, 11 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Kiev Bridges[edit]

On a different topic, how good are you in reading Ukrainian? I added several references to Kiev bridges and some of them are in Ukrainian. I am able to handle the hystoric part (I welcome help there too, of course) but in Civil Engineering I am totally dumb. Those "pylons", "towers", "caissons" are a mumbo-jumbo for me. Even in Russian I only know the word "бык" for the bridge supports. Will you be able to help? My goal is to bring it to a WP:Good article status and maybe some day we will make it WP:FAC and WP:FA. So, will you help? 134, your help is also appreciated. And the next project Dima and myself have in mind is Kiev tram. World peace! --Irpen 19:47, 12 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I can read Ukrainian...but not well, I mean I can understand its spoken...me and my wife usually speak normal Russian with each other...when we fight, like all normal couples do, she yells at me with her Volhynian surzhik and me with my Kuban balachka...and even though the diffrences are so obvious we still manage to perfectelly understand each other and suprisingly find common words so quickly that we stop fighting..:)
Anyway I'll see what I can do... as long as you help on User:Kuban kazak/Hotel Ukrayina.Kuban Cossack 00:11, 13 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

unblock[edit]

Can User:Miborovsky at least explain himself for the block on my talkpage?--Kuban Cossack 12:21, 13 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The block reason is described in the block log and therefore in the block message you see. --pgk(talk) 13:44, 13 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I think the user is blocked for the second time for the offence for which he was already blocked. Double jeopardy? Or did I miss something? --Irpen 15:06, 13 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I was unable to find any significant incivility in Cossack's edits immediately preceding the block. The most recent show of incivility was the one for which he had already been blocked. Furthermore, 24 hours is a mighty long block for WP:CIV violation in any case, even when the violation is repeated. I have unblocked Cossack for now. If Miborovsky disagrees with this action of mine, I would like him to explain exactly what was the reason for him imposing the block five hours after Cossack's last edit, and why the block had to be that long.—Ëzhiki (ërinacëus amurënsis) • (yo?); 15:25, 13 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Well if you are going to unblock then unblock me as I am still blocked!--Kuban Cossack 16:57, 13 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Please exclude "козел = goat", "дурень = dope", "дебил = moron", "заноза = splinter" from your dictionary [ref]. This what you were blocked for. But it seems like you don't see your incivil behaviour, as you questioned your first block [10], as well as this block [11]. You also didn't change your behavior after the first block [12], but you need to change it. --Anonymous 17:46, 13 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

In that case you stop editwarring and start discussing. Не ищи правду в других коли в тебе ее нету. --Kuban Cossack 18:13, 13 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with 134's sugegstion about the words exclusion. However, I don't see what prompted the second block. --Irpen 18:00, 13 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
P.S. And, 134, your warring with Kazak using an anonymous account is unethical since with dynamic IP you can't be blocked unlike Kazak. Seize any fights, even those where you are right, until you register. If you don't want to register, don't engage in any conflicts, either on the right or on the wrong side. --Irpen 18:46, 13 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Or why am I still blocked even though Ezh was meant to unblock me. Here we go again:

--Kuban Cossack 18:13, 13 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Not sure why you are still blocked. See log—there are no active blocks in effect.——Ëzhiki (ërinacëus amurënsis) • (yo?); 18:39, 13 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Alright, looks like your IP was autoblocked, so I unblocked it as well. Try editing now. And would you please be a sweetheart and stop using bad words even when it's really hard to restrain yourself? Thanks.—Ëzhiki (ërinacëus amurënsis) • (yo?); 18:52, 13 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Second that! And I crossposted at user talk:134 that his warring with you from slightly changing anon accounts is unethical and should be seized. And you, my friend, please no duraleys :). I will try to help with Ukraine Hotel as soon as I can get to it. Would be nice to bring Kiev bridges to FA someday. Cheer up and take it easy! --Irpen 18:58, 13 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Nope, but hold on let me log off then back on...-Kuban Cossack 18:55, 13 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Nope does not work. Йожик...давай узнавай от этого Миробовского чё он тут намудрил...--Kuban Cossack 18:59, 13 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Grrrr. You had two IPs autoblocked. I unblocked the other one too. Try again.—Ëzhiki (ërinacëus amurënsis) • (yo?); 19:07, 13 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Ну не рычи... can't you automatically unblock all of the IPs of that past and present of that user. (I do have a dynamic IP since it is a satellite connection). Anyway it is me that has to roar since I still can't edit.--Kuban Cossack 19:10, 13 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
But that's just it, if he blocked your username, you wouldn't be able to login under it, plus the system would autoblock your IP if you logged out and tried editing that way. An admin can unblock a username, and also can look up all autoblocks in the Special:Ipblocklist and unblock them as well. Problem is, I did all that, and you still are blocked. Apparently I am missing something here. Would you be able to flush your IP and see if you could edit anonymously from a fresh IP address? Then, if you login, would the system autoblock you again? It shouldn't, but if you could try, perhaps we'll get to the bottom of this eventually.—Ëzhiki (ërinacëus amurënsis) • (yo?); 19:26, 13 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Ok I think I can edit anonymously.
But having relogged-on...никак. So it has to be the username...--Kuban Cossack 19:35, 13 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
When you edit anonymously, edit something else rather than you your own talk because blocks don't prevent you from editing your own talk. Edit your userpage, sandbox, etc. --Irpen 19:36, 13 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I know about that, don't you worry, I took that into account when testing.--Kuban Cossack 19:47, 13 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Just for kicks, I unblocked your username again. If you can't edit under it now, I'm gonna eat what's left of my pen.—Ëzhiki (ërinacëus amurënsis) • (yo?); 19:43, 13 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Смотри чтоб не потекла ручка...because I can't. А Миборовскому этому... ладно помолчим...--Kuban Cossack 19:49, 13 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Molodets, chto promolchal :). --Irpen 19:50, 13 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]


... lets see when more than one person joins in...-Kuban Cossack 19:53, 13 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Does the system give you the same reason as before? The incivility one?—Ëzhiki (ërinacëus amurënsis) • (yo?); 19:54, 13 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
УГУ (screenshot). --Kuban Cossack 20:01, 13 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
In case you were wondering what the problem was...—Ëzhiki (ërinacëus amurënsis) • (yo?); 20:35, 13 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Helpme[edit]

Whats the problem? I tried unblocking your account and another admin is unblocking a few autoblocks, does it work now?--Commander Keane 20:03, 13 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, it works now, thank you... very much.--Kuban Cossack

20:07, 13 April 2006 (UTC)

ru:Берёза-Картузская[edit]

I believe it would have been instructive to translate this article in English. As you know, I don't write on 20th-century history, but I believe you are up for the task. Too many Russophobes here try to whitewash or forget infamous pages of their history. --Ghirla -трёп- 15:20, 17 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hello again[edit]

Hello. As you do many edits in the articles related to Belarus, I would like to show you this article: Freedom for Belorussia (II). It seems strange, strangely named, written in bad English and as well the author of it seems to have posted much anti-Lukashenko rhetorics in the talk page of the article. Review it please; you probably know about the politics of Belarus more than I do. Burann 16:02, 17 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Maps[edit]

ell, the first one has no references, but it can be useful for re-checking. As for the second—whoa, thanks! It's the next best thing to this! I only wish I had enough time and skill to process these maps into something usable by Wikipedia. I now have one less reason to procrastinate with the Russian historical divisions project :)22:00, 19 April 2006 (UTC)

Romanian War of Independence[edit]

Please take a look at the article. Formerly, the Romanians boasted here that it was they who took Plevna and that the Russian bereaved them of their victory. I added necessary tags, but now they inserted a Romanian text and claim that Russians "begged" them to help. I believe we should work out an accurate version on talk. --Ghirla -трёп- 09:04, 20 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Easter greetings[edit]

Khristos voskrese! --Ghirla -трёп- 14:37, 24 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Воистину Воскресе!--Kuban Cossack 22:45, 24 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I need your help on Vyachko. Baltic nationalists revert historic names to whatever they please. --Ghirla -трёп- 10:17, 26 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

list of Russian Princes[edit]

Hi I'm douglasfrankfort, Nice to meet you! I'm dedicating myself in the history of Russia now (In Chinese Wiki, de facto.). And I found there are very few lists about Russian rulers in English Wiki, while even the most little French vassals have their lists. That's not a good thing, I think. --Douglasfrankfort (talk to me) 11:19, 26 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Battle of the Lower Dnieper[edit]

I don't understand why you put a NPOV tag on that version of the page... -- Grafikm_fr (AutoGRAF) 14:22, 27 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Lviv[edit]

Hello there. Do you have any idea what could be done in order to make Irpen agree with the consensus we reached at the talk page? Every time I contacted him lately I was offended and spat on, so I doubt I could make him change his mind on my own. Any ideas? //Halibutt 02:19, 28 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

That's funny who is talking. Anyway, Halibutt, thanks! I explained everything at talk. Halibutt, if you think that reverting with "using popups" summary that you seem to favor isn't spitting, you are mistaken. --Irpen 04:15, 28 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
And speaking the NPOV, please Halibutt, take care of the Wilno Uprising article. I outlined the problems at talk very clearly and added the refs. It's been over a month by now. And not a single edit to adress the problema. Kazak, what would you say of that one (if you have time to add one more to your watchlist). --Irpen 05:10, 28 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
And of course you added the liberation there as well... //Halibutt 13:53, 28 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I added nothing but a clearly explained disputed tag. --Irpen 16:31, 28 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Gentlemen please do not use my talk page to argue.--Kuban Cossack 17:17, 28 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Sure, sorry for that. And thanks again for an attempt at a compromise, too bad it failed. //Halibutt 12:59, 29 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

coolness[edit]

In connection with the liberation arguments and "svidomi" usage, pls read [13] and [14]. I don't see 134 talking to Ukrained and AndriyK (perhaps by email) but I would like to make sure I do all I can. Please keep it cool and please don't take an offence for someone here telling you what to do. --Irpen 22:12, 28 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry about that, but really it is rediculous of how some people spit directely onto THEIR OWN HISTORY and HERITAGE. I am honestly ashamed of them. --Kuban Cossack 22:22, 28 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
That all aside, your position looks stronger if you don't use a language of some here. --Irpen 22:27, 28 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I know that, however it does not change anything. There is no Ukrainian POV that is different from any other ex-Soviet POV on that battle. Ukrainian nationalists often try to say that there is not eastern or western Ukraine, in this scenario, I would have to agree with them. What do you think? --Kuban Cossack 22:34, 28 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Kazak, since you were the one to place a POV tag on the article, can you please be the one to remove it? Thank you. -- Grafikm_fr (AutoGRAF) 11:13, 29 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
You know what, I sure will, after all there is no NPOV dispute in Liberation--Kuban Cossack 17:12, 29 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks[edit]

Hey thanks, for restoring my profile after the vandalism, I appreciate it. Baku87 09:52, 30 April 2006 (UTC)Baku87[reply]

Grozny-Turishcheva[edit]

Kuban Kazak, please understand that my remark ("move her page back") was directed at the original author of that name change. I also put a message on his talk page, and got a short reply on mine. I found out Turishcheva was the normal transcription independently when checking his figures (that it was LyudmiLa did not dawn on me at first), but of course I give you full credit for the correction. Thanks for the page changes there.

I am writing this because I now understand that if it WERE directed at you, it sounds very impolite. Sorry, but that was not my intention. Keep up the good work. User_talk:Pan_Gerwazy --pgp 14:13, 1 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

No prob, but please its not kozak its kazak.--Kuban Cossack 14:58, 1 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Hello! I provided a rationale for the initial move on the Talk Page. Could you, please, provide rationale for your actions there too? BTW, the variant "Turishcheva" is not used at all neither on the website of the International Olympic Committee, nor at the website of the International Gymnastics Federation. Could you provide any evidence, that "Turishcheva" variant is the generally accepted convention? Cmapm 18:52, 1 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Wph057[edit]

Yeah, this one I know. It's good for cross-reference, but I avoid using it as a primary source because it is unclear where the information came from and because the site contains numerous errors. Anyway, thanks for the note—I much appreciate your assistance.—Ëzhiki (ërinacëus amurënsis) • (yo?); 20:25, 3 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Kiev Metro[edit]

Seeing that you hold quite a bit of knowledge on Architecture then perhaps you would be able to give us some professional advice.

The argument is this: If an architect designs a structure (say a metro station) which includes political slogans and motives in the decoration (say Communist symbols). Then years later under polical reasons someone decides to remove them. Wouldn't that be a conflict with the original design of that sturucture, based on the architects plan? Perhaps you would like to comment on Talk:Kiev Metro#Conflict vs alteration. Btw I love architecture as well, but I do lots of undergound articles i.e. this --Kuban Cossack 11:37, 3 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I applaud your efforts and enthusiasm. My comments though are for you to show the splendor of the decorations and the design that you think is being ruined, rather than simply state it. Make sure you stay NPOV, but add more descriptions and illustrations of the details that were removed by the contractors. Also try to identify the architects and politicos involved. Explain this incident well, as it carries alot of intrigue and complexity and will make Kiev Metro a better article. DVD+ R/W 21:38, 3 May 2006 (UTC


RfC[edit]

What do YOU think? --Ghirla -трёп- 09:35, 4 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Mir, Trud, May[edit]

Kazak, please avoid edit summaries like this. They help achieve exactly nothing! Don't follow on the footsteps of some of your opponents. --Irpen 19:06, 5 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Same applies to this edit summary. Can't you control yourself? --Irpen 19:21, 5 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Crimea[edit]

Please check this article for your Crimean transfer project. S nastupayuschim! --Irpen 21:08, 7 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

S Prazdnikom[edit]

Shouldn't it be pravoe and not pravilnoe ?--Eupator 01:01, 9 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I am too tired to think, maybe. --Kuban Cossack 01:03, 9 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

И Вас тоже[edit]

thumb|128px|С праздником

For contributing to so many wonderful metro-related articles, I, DDima, herby give you this Original Barnstar Award on Victory Day. Please keep up the good work! —DDima (talk) 01:34, 9 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Condratulation with both! I am glad you got one on the left! Please keep up good work and help resolve the problematic issues through the compromise and reasonable accomodation. And of course also:

С Днём Победы!
--Irpen 01:58, 9 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

С Днём Победы![edit]

С ДНЁМ ПОБЕДЫ!

Поздравляю с великим праздником - Днём Победы! Ура!

Cossack 02:44, 9 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

С Днём Победы![edit]

File:09.05.1945.jpg

Спасибо и Вас также c Днём Победы! And many thanks for your great work on metro-related topics. Keep it up! Kober 05:27, 9 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Re: С праздником[edit]

Спасибо, вас также. У меня оба деда воевали, один погиб, другой был ранен и был инвалидом войны, так что для моей семьи, как и для большинства на постсоветском пространстве, этот праздник имеет особое значение. Всего вам наилучшего. Grandmaster 10:40, 9 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

С праздником Победы! :) -- Grafikm (AutoGRAF) 10:58, 9 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Мои взаимные поздравления.—Ëzhiki (ërinacëus amurënsis) • (yo?); 12:14, 9 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks a lot everybody, particulary for the Barnstar. --Kuban Cossack 15:42, 9 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]


Zhukov[edit]

Hello could you take a look at the Talk:Georgy Zhukov page and add your opinion to the matter (Deng 18:56, 9 May 2006 (UTC))[reply]

I'll keep an eye on that article. -Kuban Cossack 12:11, 11 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Template[edit]

I didn't want to do that because a template cannot be as detailed as a separate article without becoming terribly overloaded. If you want to create such templates yourself, please go ahead—the [[Administrative divisions of...]] articles have all the information you'll need. Also, another reason I don't see it as a priority is that we have very few articles about raions, so such templates will for the most part be bright red.—Ëzhiki (ërinacëus amurënsis) • (yo?); 20:06, 10 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

How about cities in ...oblast? --Kuban Cossack 20:11, 10 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
That'll work better. Which section do you see this template in?—Ëzhiki (ërinacëus amurënsis) • (yo?); 20:21, 10 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
See the bottom of Chernigov. --Kuban Cossack 20:28, 10 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Like this?—Ëzhiki (ërinacëus amurënsis) • (yo?); 20:39, 10 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Ugu, tolko Adygeyu My nazad v Krasnodarsky Krai rano ili pozdno zaberem, tam to Russkikh >60%, A im tseluyu respubliku... :(--Kuban Cossack 20:43, 10 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Well, when/if it happens, I'll be the first to take this template down. For now, it's a separate republic. Anyway, I'll be making other templates as time permits. Feel free to join when you have a spare moment—the task is not exactly exciting. Just remember to use "cities and towns" instead of "cities", and the term "administrative center" (instead of "capital") for all federal subjects except republics.—Ëzhiki (ërinacëus amurënsis) • (yo?); 20:49, 10 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Lupo[edit]

I'm editing the statement at this very moment, hang on... :) --Grafikm (AutoGRAF) 12:44, 13 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Cheers. --Kuban Cossack 12:46, 13 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I deleted your last paragraph and replaced it with a more detailed statement. Sorry about that :) I think the statement is now complete -- Grafikm (AutoGRAF) 12:54, 13 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Done[edit]

Все, я закончил разводить писанину. Труби в трубу и давай собирать народ против этого чувачка (ибо нех)... -- Grafikm (AutoGRAF) 13:05, 13 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Я ща по всем проектам пройдусь (Армян, Азербайжанцев и т.д. ) Ты может на commons заглянь и на ru-wiki залезь. --Kuban Cossack 13:07, 13 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
А меня там не знает никто, у меня и аккаунтов-то там нет. А тебя все тут знают, так что займись ты, пожалуйста... :) -- Grafikm (AutoGRAF) 13:11, 13 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
А я тоже там малоизвестен--Kuban Cossack 13:11, 13 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Unblock[edit]

Blocking me will not solve anything. I meant what I called that person and I shall not take it back. Today he allows himself to deleate all of our images, tommorow all of articles, then he calls us second class people. Shame on you for giving such users admin rights. See my messages on Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Lupo --Kuban Cossack 19:56, 13 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sorry you feel that way but I'm afraid I don't buy your slippery slope argument. What you said is inexcusable and if you shall not take it back then there is no reason to unblock you. Sasquatch t|c 19:58, 13 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
How about this, let the RfC finish and then block me for a month (or even a year for all I care) if need to, to compensate this. I am sorry that I have cannot write articles anymore without having the security of administrators that instead of working to improve wikipedia DISRUPT it. --Kuban Cossack 20:02, 13 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
What's even more disruptive was your behaiviour. I don't care if you hate Lupo's guts inside, you will act civil to him. Sasquatch t|c 20:06, 13 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Behaivour aside, it might be uncivil it might be rude. That I do acknowledge, but by putting out the fire don't go for the flames, go for the wood that Lupo has lit. As a matter of fact as an author I do not hate him, on the cotrary even compliment on his good useful contributions to a lot of wikipedian articles and merit his constructive work. This however was neither constructive nor beneficial in any shape or form, that would get a lot of debate, but when he resorts to vigilantism and does not bother to notify the people that will be affected. Well I wonder how you will feel. --Kuban Cossack 20:15, 13 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

48 hour block[edit]

I have blocked you for 48 hours because of the things you said to Lupo. Frankly, I don't care about the whole template issue but your behaiviour was unacceptable. Do not ever call editors parasites or nazis or threaten them ever again. Period. There are civil ways to argue your case. When you come back, please remember that. You are free to argue your case but you cannot make attacks on other people. Thank you for your time. Sasquatch t|c 19:57, 13 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Like I said above, 48 hours is not going to change anything, if civility is the case here than consider his negligince to the good 30+ users who he spat in the face. If he does what he did to us, to you I would love to see your reaction. --Kuban Cossack 19:59, 13 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
He's not doing anything to you. He's simply trying to sort out the whole issue on whether the images are public domain or not. You have no evidence what-so-ever that he hates Russian/Soviets or that he is even wrong in his claims. The only thing he might have done is act prematurely which still does not justify your actions. When you return, I expect you to take a logical and dispassionate stance on the issue. Not insult any further editors or you will be blocked further. That's the end of the story. Sasquatch t|c 20:05, 13 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Let's get the issue straight, I am not the kind of person that will insult people left right and centre with no reason. I am not like that. However Lupo knew well that the issue is complicated and would generate a lot of discussion. However, we Russian wikipedian society, found that out AFTER he already deprecated the tag, and used his admin powers to edit a media wiki page. So were we, according to him supposed to simply watch our work disappear, yes it sent me into a frenzy, because this is not the first time he completely ignored us. The original TfD was much criticised for not keeping the editors that use this tag informed prior to its nomination. However now he goes further again with blatant ignorance. Does he also get a civility block for such arrogant attitude towards us? --Kuban Cossack 20:11, 13 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
His unilatteralism on this issue is not something I support but it is not deserving of a block. As far as I can tell, his changes can be and were reverted. The reason the Mediawiki spaces are protected for only admins is because they affect the entire system. Now, I understand that you were, of course, angered by this but that is never an excuse. If you truly wish your block to be reduced I would suggest by telling me right now that you will not ever call anyone names, insulting them or threatening them on Wikipedia again. I am a relatively sensible and lenient person but I don't take well to the aforementioned actions. Sasquatch t|c 20:31, 13 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Look, I am no saint neither are you or Lupo, but at least we all try to be. Now as you have noticed that all of my insults were within the first hour after realising what he has done. Then, with discussions they stopped. Moreover I am prepared to apologise for Lupo if he admits what he did was not only wrong but extreamely bad faith. Like I said before I avoid lowering myself to insults but which insult is worse name-calling or starting a process behind a persons' back. Equivalent would be not letting Lupo know of his RfC and having him burst in after decisions have been decided against his favour, (or even better a person with admin rights) decided to end his career on wiki. I think that would be a much more serious insult. And to answer your question I would NEVER do anything like that to a person without his consent, as for name-calling that is not something that makes me famous for doing. I write Metro-articles on wiki, and don't do trolling on peoples' talk pages. --Kuban Cossack 20:41, 13 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Alright, your block has been reduced but I expect never to see any more insults. Have a nice day. Sasquatch t|c 20:44, 13 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you very much please feel free to quote some of my comments when explaining yourself on the RfC page on why you reduced my block. Moreover add that If Lupo does admit to his wrongdoing, that would be a signal strong enough for me to apologise for the name calling and request that the RfC be closed and discussion of the copyright problem can be resumed. Kuban Cossack 20:49, 13 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Unblock 2[edit]

Sorry but my block was meant to expire a few hours ago but I am still blocked.--Kuban Cossack 23:38, 13 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I've undone the autoblock --pgk(talk) 11:42, 14 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you--Kuban Cossack 11:55, 14 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

One more time, please control yourself. I support your defence of an important template but I did not and will not interfere with incivility blocks if you bring upon yourself

Also, why did you delete the funny entry from that fellow. I say keep it like I did so it is clear to all Wikipedians who they are dealing with but it is up to you of course to decide. I moved your post from WP:AN to WP:ANI where this belongs and commented there.

Please stay cool. Unfortunately, I have much non-Wikipedia stuff to do these days but I will be around. Regards, --Irpen 19:52, 14 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Moving articles[edit]

I hope that this edit is an accident, not a deliberate attempt to prevent moving the article back. We all know that User:AndriyK was banned from Wikipedia among other things for the similar trick. Please ensure it would not happen again. abakharev 00:06, 15 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry what was the accident? I am not sure myself. --Kuban Cossack 00:12, 15 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]


Hello when you have time take a look here[edit]

Stalin

(Deng 23:20, 17 May 2006 (UTC))[reply]

History of Christianity in Ukraine[edit]

Не скажешь же ты, что эти изменения, которые были там в течение месяца, внес кто-то другой? Я конечно понимаю, у каждого есть своя точка зрения, но все-таки когда пишешь статью можно же воспользоваться какими-либо дополнительными источниками, кроме мнения отдельных представителей РПЦ, православной энциклопедии и сайтов каких-то право-радикальных движений. При твоих-то способностях к языкам (user-en-5) можно было бы найти, что-либо более нейтральное. Да и в интернете существует масса нормальных нейтральных статей на эту тему в том числе на русском языке и на православных сайтах. Зачем выискивать всякую грязь и тащить ее на страницы Википедии. В этих нескольких абзацах, добавленных за последний месяц, столько неточностей, предвзятостей и ошибок, что, как мне кажется, лучше эти абзацы отбросить и начать писать все с чистого листа. --Yakudza 15:41, 18 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Что скажешь относительно этого? --Yakudza 15:45, 18 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Во первых если тебе чего нибудь не нравиться - ПОПРАВЬ, улучши. Понимаешь тема эта сложная и не простая. Сейчас статья можно сказать 70% склонена к позиции РПЦ. Но зато точка зрения этой позиции довольно четко изложена. Пожалуста, добавь противоречивую точку зрения, опусти это число до 50%. Но на кой бред разводить по википедии. Эта статья сейчас в очень плохом состояния, ее надо не только развить но и улучшить. Хотя бы мог бы по-благодорить за сделанное. Во-вторых нравиться тебе или нет но с точки историчиской правды ведь ты не будешь отрицать Руссофильность Галичан, Иосифа Семашко и то что уния в 19-м веке себя добровольно само-ликвидировала. Или массовые захваты храмов в 90-е. Как бы горькие факты эти небыли они факты. (П.С. для приличия стер бы свою ложь, или хотя бы смяглчил бы.)
Благодарить собственно полагаю не за что. До твоего вмешательства, осенью прошлого года (а может еще и летом как анонима) статья была хоть и небольшой, но довольно объективной и нейтральной. Ее даже хотели номинировать на WP:FA. Сейчас же это - потенциальное поле битвы. Полагаю, что ты не совсем верно трактуешь нейтральность википедии - это не смесь 50% пропаганды одной стороны и 50% другой (я в такие игры не играю и добавлять "противоречивую точку зрения" не буду), а по-возможности объективное освещение вопроса. Не думаю, что стоило братся за дополнения к статье, если к этому не готов. Я постараюсь поискать в ближайшее время англо- и русскоязычные источники, которые более или менее нейтрально описывают историю христианства в Украине и на их основе можно будет перерабатывать статью. И я думаю, что это будет более конструктивный путь, чем доказывать почему это слово не так, это предложение неправильно и т.д. В нынешнем виде в статье слишком много ошибок, и обсуждение каждой из них может занять несколько страниц talk. Теперь по вопросам - московофильство галичан в середине 19-го века не такой уж значительный факт для данной статьи, тем более, что к началу 20-го века оно сошло на нет, а после неумной политики российского правительства на захваченых у Австро-Венгрии во время WW1 территориях от него и следа не осталось. Массовые захваты храмов это тоже во многом миф. Храмы большей частью переходили под юрисдикцию той церкви куда решил перейти приход. РПЦ храмы не принадлежали - они были собственностью государства. Конфликты в Галиции между греко-католиками и автокефальными православными были только там, где в селах была одна церковь, но две громады. А о том, что уния в 19-веке (я так полагаю, ты имеешь в виду на территории Рос.Империи) самоликвидировалась у меня большие сомнения. Во всяком случае, все что я читал до этого говорит об обратном - это был во-многом насильственный процесс при содействии властей. --Yakudza 19:02, 18 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Не москвофильство а Руссофильство - не путай вещи. А это действительно было так. Ведь именно в Галиции был поставлен первый вне территории России памятник Пушкину. Да вначале 20-го (после того как их всех пререзали в Телергофе оно дейтсвительно сошло на нет). Отнюдь, в СССР храмы были собственностью РПЦ, государвство выполняло роль их охраны. (Для тех которые числились памятниками архитектуры). Да и именно благодоря этим громадам были разгромленны под корень три православные епархии. А в содействие властей в 19-м веке, ну да Полякам не удалось восстания, а их устранили от влияния в обществе. Без них уния просуществовала 9 лет. Потом Епископ Семашко, на униатском Соборе в Полоцке восстановил каноническую связь с Православной церквью. И все храмы были вернуты нам. 70 лет был мир. --Kuban Cossack 19:45, 18 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Насчет старых фоток конечно свинство как они раскрутили кампанию но надо бороться с этим. --Kuban Cossack 15:56, 18 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
По-моему в том документе, который так извратил(а) Лупо есть все, чтоб поставить его(ее) на место. Это было гораздо эффективнее чем угрожать. Собственно вся его аргументация строится на "однабабасказала", т.е. "один мой знакомый юрист сказал" и далее он уходит от основного вопроса и начинает обсуждать второстепенные детали, т.е. типичный форумный флудер. Такого надо ставить на место четкой и аргументированной позицией и не давать ему уходить в сторону. --Yakudza 19:02, 18 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Ты на его Рфц где надо подпишись. --Kuban Cossack 19:45, 18 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

RfC[edit]

Please take a look on Švitrigaila and its talk page. --Ghirla -трёп- 05:39, 19 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Back in time[edit]

Kuban, out of curiosity, you may check Artemiy Lebedev’s notes on his recent visit to North Korea and China. You may know this guy as he is also a metro fan. There are few photos of North Korea’s metro in his notes as well. Take care,

I know the guy personally...out of curiousity, why do you continue to refer to me as Kuban when I specifically asked to not to? --Kuban Cossack 22:26, 20 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Soviet partisans[edit]

Hi, despite your ... funny behaviour, I came here again with an editing issue. Please restyle this your edit in some way. This particular issue isn't about Russian POV-pushing, it's probably about your poor wording. I don't get WHO do you think were "pardoned" in 1955: German POWs taken by the Red Army, or opposite? And why do you think the "collaborators" were pardoned (supply references)? As far as I know, the collaboration was an eternally-persecuted crime (Russian: преступление, не имеющее срока давности). Must be some mistake... So please develop that sentence. Hope to change my opinion on you,AlexPU 12:07, 21 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

commons:Image:Stalin-Lenin-Kalinin-1919.jpg[edit]

Your help is required here: commons:Template:Featured pictures candidates/Image:Stalin-Lenin-Kalinin-1919.jpg -- 84.157.0.139 22:34, 21 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your contribution. But, couldn't you think of anyone else to support us? -- 84.157.53.56 20:46, 24 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Kuban_kazak/2006_2&oldid=1160693465"