User talk:Ghirlandajo/Christmas 2005

DYK

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

Slavic foklore

I will try my best to fix some of the articles on which I do have some proper knowledge, but Slavic mythology is a hornet's nest. If one was to list only Slavic gods for which there are reliable historic sources ackonwledging their existance, you'd have to delete half of the articles written in there. Belobog, Koleda, Radegost, Triglav, etc., are all examples of gods who more than likely never existed, who might be folklore or fairy constructions of later ages, misconceptions or even pure inventions, such as Lada/Lado. On the other hand, one can never be sure in these things; after all, there is a possibility, albeit a very small one, that Lada/Lado exclamations in folk songs was in fact the name of some forgotten diety. But again, if you used only reliable historic sources of contemporary writers (such as Saxo, Thietmar or Helmod), you'd have to open a bunch of stub-articles about gods whose Latinised names their mumbled records of Slavic miythology contain, such as Rugievit, Porevith, Piazmar, Turupit, of which nothing more than their name cannot be said. -- Hier0phant 21:58, 22 December 2005 (UTC)

Russian Museum pic

Hi, do you by any chance remember where you got Image:Russian Museum.jpg from? As part of fair-use image cleanup, everything is being tracked down. Unfortunately, it seems that Wikipedians have taken pictures of everything in St. Pete except the Mikhailovsky Palace :-), so even commons doesn't have a replacement (that I could find). Perhaps a "little" drive over to take some pictures yourself?? Stan 21:38, 10 December 2005 (UTC)

Answered on User_talk:Stan Shebs --Ghirlandajo 13:37, 12 December 2005 (UTC)

Thanks! Any images you want me to pay special attention to, just mention. There are so many images of dubious status, tough to keep up. Stan 13:54, 12 December 2005 (UTC)

Kobylas

Ghirlandajo, can you check Andrei Ivanovich Kobyla and Fedor Andreevich Kobylin stubs. I have put additional info from the Romanov article, but all together it does not seem to make sense. abakharev 21:49, 11 December 2005 (UTC)

I had both articles expanded and rewritten. --Ghirlandajo 07:45, 13 December 2005 (UTC)

DYK

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

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

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

Serbs

the article could do with better references, but it doesn't sound too incredible to me. It is very common that tribal names were re-assigned, for example the Cimbri were a Celtic or Germanic tribe, but they were possibly named after the Cimmerians. The Bulghars were a Turkic tribe originally, and the Slavic Bulgars were named after them. The Rus were Germanic and became Slavic. This sort of thing happens all the time. So I think it is eminently possible that the Serbi were Iranian originally, and became Slavic, either because they gradually adopted another langauge, or because they were conquered by Slavs, who took over the name. Just because I think it is possible doesn't make it so, of course, the article will need references. dab (ᛏ) 16:08, 14 December 2005 (UTC)

Interesting; of course the article needs a lot of cleanup work; I only started with the ancient authors. You should quote Vasmer (although it is not evident to me how the Iranian tribe could then be called serboi at all, it would have to be kharvoi). The list of toponyms is silly of course. If it is original research, it should be deleted. If it is from some source, it should be attributed and maybe exported to a separate article. dab (ᛏ) 17:16, 14 December 2005 (UTC)

I understand that, but you can't have both in Iranian; one half of the tribe would have had to be Iranian, and the other half Indo-Aryan, or some other strange constellation like that. Anyway, that's just my comment; you'll be fine if you just cite Vasmer. dab (ᛏ) 17:26, 14 December 2005 (UTC)

Tsar vs Emperor

Which one is more correct and why? I thought that tsar would be better, but your recent edits on Partitons... indicate that I was wrong?--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus ^Talk 17:59, 14 December 2005 (UTC)

Because the official title of the monarch of the Russian Empire was emperor. The term "tsar" is generally applied to the 17th century or earlier. Also, because the article featured different spellings - "tsars", "Czarina", and such discrepancies are no good. --Ghirlandajo 18:06, 14 December 2005 (UTC)

This is an age old terminological pain in the behind. The formal title of the Russian Tsars (tsar = caesar = sovereign) was changed to "emperor" in 1721 and the term "tsar" became their primary secondary title -- see the Wikipedia article for a complete list. Historians usually distinguish the "St. Petersburg" or (mostly overlapping) "imperial" period of Russian history, which lasted from roughly 1721 until 1917, from earlier and later periods. However, although the term "emperor" was used by foreign diplomats and by the Russian upper class, "tsar" persisted in non-specialist foreign publications and, to a significant extent, among the lower classes within the Russian empire. Late XIXth-early XXth century English language newspapers usually referred to the German emperor as "the Kaiser" and to the Russian emperor as "the Tsar" even though there were other rulers (in Austria and Bulgaria) who used the same terms at the time. The tradition has been kept alive by some writers since 1917, although more perfectionist historians try to stick to the correct nomenclature. To quote Bugs Bunny, "Confusing, ain't it?" :) Ahasuerus 20:10, 14 December 2005 (UTC)

DYK

Did you know? has been updated. A fact from the article La Tour d'Auvergne, which you recently created, has been featured in that section on the Main Page. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the "Did you know?" talk page.

Bogdan's RfA

G'day Ghirlandajo,

I have actually had dealings with Bonaparte in the past, and although they didn't quite leave me with a very favourable impression, I wouldn't rule him out as a "troll" based on what I've seen. You, I'll admit, I don't know. I had a snappy comeback about how you "should know better", but I've just looked at the RfA again, your behaviour wasn't as bad as I'd characterised it. I'm sorry. fuddlemark (fuddle me!) 12:16, 15 December 2005 (UTC)

La Tour d'Auvergne

Flawless: I keep forgetting that you're actually Russian, as I bump into your work. So, you see? Grand'mère was right about those old Almanachs de Gotha that were hidden in the barn all those years—they did come in useful after all! In the article I'd add a slight emphasis to the Medici-ness of Lorenzino , who is too mysterious as "Lorenzo of Urbino". I wish the French titles could be lower-case: "Duke of Bourbon" is just passable, but it should always be duc de..., comte de... Not like the English way. But these are quibbles... Wetman--13:00, 15 December 2005 (UTC)

Sogdiana --> vandalism

An anonymus IP is editing the article by inserting totally wrong information in it. I've asked him to discuss the issue before editing. He has not responded yet but continues the re-edit of the article. Maybe we should ask an admin for help. -213.39.141.128 16:02, 15 December 2005 (UTC)

I already asked a couple of hours ago. You may find my announcement on WP:ANI. You are welcome to add your own complaint. --Ghirlandajo 16:09, 15 December 2005 (UTC)

Thank you -213.39.141.128 16:19, 15 December 2005 (UTC) (= Phoenix2 from German Wikipedia)

DYK

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

Congress of Berlin

Oops, I answered on my own Talk page :( Thanks for the star, but, sadly, it looks like I may not be able to spend as much time on Wikipedia articles as I have over the last few months, at least not for a while. Ahasuerus 16:44, 16 December 2005 (UTC)

/Workshop

This edit http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/AndriyK/Workshop&diff=prev&oldid=31301777 is unacceptable. Don't remove others comments. Fred Bauder 13:05, 17 December 2005 (UTC)

Re:/Workshop

I did not remove the comment (which had been posted by Yakudza verbatim three times before that on my RfC and elsewhere) but moved it to /Evidence, where imho it rightfully belongs. If one party is allowed to paste some pieces of evidence to /Workshop, may I do the same? --Ghirlandajo 13:13, 17 December 2005 (UTC)

If useful, in your opinion. Just don't remove stuff by others. Fred Bauder 13:16, 17 December 2005 (UTC)

Roy Al Blue's newest stubs

I have added two more battle stubs with Russia as a combatant. First is the Battle of Te-li-Ssu during the Russo-Japanese War, and second is the Battle of Gumbinnen during World War I. Roy Al Blue 18:14, 17 December 2005 (UTC)

Thanks, Roy. I will take a look later. --Ghirlandajo 18:28, 17 December 2005 (UTC)

Hi! The IP 84.54.70.4 is the public-facing IP for all dialup users in this ISP. Please do not block us all.

Indiscrimite deletion of anon edits

I noticed you immediately reverted the edit I made with just the rv anon comment. I understand the need to protect wikipedia from vandalism - but that edit is clearly not vandalism and shows a disrespect to the occasional editor. Please reconsider your behavior. 64.12.116.70 01:39, 18 December 2005 (UTC)

Need your help

Some Pan-Turkists are messing up the article Turan. They are destroying the article with wrong information. -80.171.14.65 03:02, 18 December 2005 (UTC)

Nicolae Milescu

Hi, Ghirlandajo. I need your help for this article. I think that most of the info contained in it is accurate, but I could not add from the Russian page (which has a lot more). I've looked over the page, tried to figure some things out (all I do is that I can read Cyrillic, and cannot understand your language except for terribly simplified contexts... or maybe not even that :) ). Well, I linked the pages in en wiki and ru wiki, and I was wondering if you or some other Russian speaker would translate the basic topics in there, and perhaps render more accurate what I have added (if my info should happen to be based on misunderstandings). Many thanks. Dahn 17:00, 18 December 2005 (UTC)

Everything is correct. I added details of his journey to China on Talk:Nicolae Milescu--Ghirlandajo 17:02, 18 December 2005 (UTC)

Thanks. About Koriatovich: as I looked through the pages trying to find his lost brethren, the Mukacheve article popped up first, so I had seen it. I cannot connect the two, but I'm sure the article for Iuga/Yury is as accurate as it will ever be. Again, that is thanks to you and Piotrus. Dahn 18:02, 18 December 2005 (UTC)

DYK

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

Turan

Hi, I saw your strugle in the article Sogdiana and thought that you're maybe intersted in this: Turan. An IP is vadalizing the article. He has removed the old article and is pushing for a Pan-Turkist, non-scientific blah blah. -Tajik 19:38, 19 December 2005 (UTC)

DYK

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

☆

Hello! I ☆ed on you head page. --Sheynhertz_געשׁ״ך 11:56, 20 December 2005 (UTC)

Thanks for the star :) --Ghirlandajo 12:06, 20 December 2005 (UTC)

DYK

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

--Gurubrahma 17:58, 20 December 2005 (UTC)

Holy Trinity Column in Olomouc

Hello Ghirlandajo,

thanks for your information about Wikipedia, which is very useful for me and for your kind evaluation of my article (Holy Trinity Column in Olomouc).

I really appreciate being a Wikipedian and would like to add a couple more articles.

I think you have already nominated my page on Did you know Template talk. Thank you very much for that.

I have also received a message, that this article was featured in that section on the Main page, but unfortunately I have failed to find it there. May I ask, what's wrong?

Jan.Kamenicek 23:30, 21 December 2005 (UTC)

DYK

Did you know? has been updated. A fact from the article Nativity Church at Putinki, which you recently created, has been featured in that section on the Main Page. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the "Did you know?" talk page.

Thanks!

Thank you for nominating Gherardello da Firenze for DYK! I had no idea anyone even looked at the stuff I wrote. I appreciate it!  :-) Antandrus (talk) 00:25, 22 December 2005 (UTC)

Your edit of Starodub

Please pay attention that the word "annexed" has been in the article for a long time. It was present in your version of 18:25, 25 October 2005. Initially, it was written by User:KNewman [1].

Now you remove the phrase you don't like and turne the sentence into noncence: "until 1781 when it a district town." [2].

Could not you act more constructively, please?--AndriyK 09:48, 23 December 2005 (UTC)

Warsaw images

Thanks for the note! Oddly, the same images have been uploaded to commons recently, with source but still no license, so I deleted the local copies, will let commons process do its thing. Stan 14:36, 23 December 2005 (UTC)

DYK

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

--Gurubrahma 14:37, 23 December 2005 (UTC)

Finnish chauvinism

I see we have been hit by the same anonymous editor again. u p p l a n d 18:33, 23 December 2005 (UTC)

This user logged in as User:Carolina de la Gardie. Watch her edits. --Ghirla | talk 18:46, 23 December 2005 (UTC)

Ribbons

Sure, I can make ribbons for you. But, if you want, I designed the ribbons using Microsoft Paint and I made them into PNG files by using Ultimate Paint.

Just let me know what size you wish for them to be and I will make it. Zach ^{(Smack Back)} 22:42, 24 December 2005 (UTC)

Your revert in Russia-Ukraine gas dispute of 2005

Please read my questions on the Talk:Russia-Ukraine gas dispute of 2005 and try to answer them before you revert. Please switch to a fair discussion instead of starting one more edit war. --AndriyK 21:12, 25 December 2005 (UTC)

It was you who started reverting on this article. I strongly encourage ArbCom to limit your capacity to revert, although it's the only "contribution" you have made to this project so far. Please refrain from further reverts until they settle the issues of your previous revert warring. --Ghirla | talk 21:28, 25 December 2005 (UTC)

What abou a fair discussion?--AndriyK 21:55, 25 December 2005 (UTC)

WP:DYK

I am not normally involved in updating this section of the main page (although I do rarely fix errors in the section). You should post your request on User talk:Gurubrahma or User talk:Petaholmes (but the latter hasn't edited for several days; maybe he's on holiday).-gadfium 08:08, 26 December 2005 (UTC)

Avvakum - Petrov, Petrovich?

Show me any serious book or document, calling Avvakum "Avvakum Petrovich". Everywhere he is called Avvakum Petrov, not Petrovich. His father may have had the name Petr, and, indeed, in MODERN Russian, it WOULD therefore been Petrovich. But, as you say, in MODERN Russian. At those times, ordinairy people did not have patronymics ending on -ich. So Avvakum is rightly called "Avvakum Petrov". Every standard work about Old believers and Avvakum states the same. I don't see any point in modernizing a historical name and thus deviating from all other sources about Old believers and Avvakum. Vasilij.

Talk:Kirill Yeskov

Replied there, in case you are not watching it. Is there a ru-wiki entry of him? Or some kind of ru-homepage or other thing to be added to elinks? I love his book and it's a shame there is so little info on him in English :( But I guess that's the fate of vast majority of non-English writers :( --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus ^Talk 13:22, 26 December 2005 (UTC)

The postal network and census under Mongols. I ask you again

Your text: "Under Mongol occupation, for example, Muscovy developed its postal road network, census, fiscal system..."

Is that really so? What are your sources? Postal road network, census existed in the own territory of the Golden Horde, in China under Mongols, but what about population censuses and safe communications in territories of vassal Russian princedoms? For example Ivan Kalita, having received a label on grand-ducal reigning in 1328, cleared himself roads of robbers and maked communications safe.

ps. By the way the idea (which you share) about positive influence of Golden Horde was completely unknown during pre-revolutionary time and has appeared only at some Soviet historians -- Ben-Velvel 13:35, 26 December 2005 (UTC)

This is not my text. The article is taken from the Library of Congress Country Studies. I never even edited the phrase you quote here, although I believe it is essentially correct. --Ghirla | talk 13:39, 26 December 2005 (UTC)

Why you absolutely trust that article? (The author and the name of the article?). Why researches of the Russian historians and archeologists for you do not play any role? Did Americans carries out the same volume of researches as well as our scientists? Why do you name Kluchevsky the Russian nationalist though he was the leading liberal scientist who wrote about harm of bureaucratization and explained causes of the bureaucratization. Ben-Velvel 13:55, 26 December 2005 (UTC)

Hi!!

Hi, dunno why u rmv.ed the msg. from my talkpage. It is not supposed to be Wikiquette to rmv. edits from a talkpage even if they are made by you in the first place. btw, User:Petaholmes generally updates DYK during the early part of the day. As my time-zone is UTC+5.5, it is very difficult for me to update before 0400hrs. UTC and I am typically available to update DYK till 1700 hrs UTC or so. Keep up the good work in nominating others' articles as well. --Gurubrahma 14:09, 26 December 2005 (UTC)

DYK

Hi Andrey, I see that you added Lennoxlove House to DYK. Just letting you know I expanded your nomination a bit to include the death mask of Mary Queen of Scots. Cheers. --Cactus.man ✍ 10:01, 27 December 2005 (UTC)

Yep, there was not too much material out there to create a bigger article on Boris Grigoriev. I'll try to make the next Russian artist a bit bigger :) --Cactus.man ✍ 12:29, 27 December 2005 (UTC)

DYK

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

I could not use the image as it is a colour photograph and cannot be definitely 100+ years old as mentioned on the image page. Copyright applies to the creator and not the subject. Hence, the copyright belongs to the photographer and hence it cannot be considered a free image. It may be possible that the photographer may have released it under GFDL but since no mention is made on the image page, I did not want to take the risk. --Gurubrahma 14:16, 27 December 2005 (UTC)

Templates in Ukrainian language

You added two templates {{totallydisputed}} and {{verify}} on the top of the article Ukrainian language. Could you please explain the reasons on the corresponding talk page?--AndriyK 14:30, 27 December 2005 (UTC)

Please read summaries in the history section. I notice that you seldom use edit summaries, which is not good, by the way. --Ghirla | talk 14:32, 27 December 2005 (UTC)

Whould you please elaborate your summary on the talk page?--AndriyK 14:35, 27 December 2005 (UTC)

DYK

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

Allow me

		An Award
		I, User:Alex Bakharev award this St. Vladimir Barnstar with diamonds to Ghirlandajo in recognition of his leadership on Portal:Russia project and his articles on Medieval Russia

RfA thanks from Deathphoenix

Hi Ghirla,

I just wanted to thank you for supporting me in my RfA. To tell you the truth, I was surprised by all the support I've gotten. I never saw myself as more than an occasional Wiki-hobbyist.

My wife sends her curses, as Wikipedia will likely suck up more of my time. She jokingly (I think) said she was tempted to log on to Wikipedia just to vote Oppose and let everyone know that she didn't want her husband to be an admin.

I'll make sure your trust in me is founded. --Deathphoenix 15:28, 28 December 2005 (UTC)

Descent from antiquity

Hi, I don't speak very well english, but I read a lot of your article and I change Charles Settipani in this article to Christian Settipani, I think it was a mistake .Your article are very interresting. Boim 19:51, 28 December 2005 (UTC)Boim

Redirect

Hello Ghirlandajo

I appreciate your contributions to Uzbeks article.

Popular doesn’t mean true.

I understand that you want users to get more knowledge. That’s very good, but I think link Uzbeg Khan in the “Name” section would be enough. I know that it doesn’t mean that Uzbeks and Uzbek khan are connected somehow. But users might think that Uzbeks took their name from him. Therefore it is important to change redirect on to Uzbekistan or delete it at all.

I am absolutely sure that our relations will proceed in civilized way. In my opinion we should discuss the changes before make them in order to prevent conflicts and make the best contribution to Wikipedia.

Regards

AcademicResearch 13:31, 29 December 2005 (UTC)

I am going to change redirect. Reply to Talk if you agree or not.

Regards AcademicResearch 13:57, 29 December 2005 (UTC)

DYK

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

Hi, the image suggested was from the Tripartite bridge page; so, I substituted it with the image on the Mokia river page --Gurubrahma 14:52, 29 December 2005 (UTC)

The tag

Αндрей, izvini pazhawsta! Thousand apologies. I suffer from a "brain cloud" (my own term), due to adverse effects from the medications I'm taking for my illness. Kid you not. When it peaks I lose focus, concentration and partially memory. Being serious here. The good news is I'm getting better. Tvoy droog, Kasmicheskiy Pyeshekhod Space Cadet 17:07, 29 December 2005 (UTC)

Anti-Romanian discrimination

Could you please tell me what is going on at Anti-Romanian discrimination? I am having some trouble distinguishing troll from troll - could you please explain this edit? Is it true that you have not discussed it on the talk page but still revert war? Now I don't want to go around protecting pages and/or issuing blocks, but if you perceive yourself to be a "serious" contributor, there must be a better way to not feed the trolls (this is what I told ProhibitOnions about Nixer). Are you sure that mediation is not an option? Izehar 12:04, 30 December 2005 (UTC)

PS you are being discussed at WP:AN. Izehar 12:08, 30 December 2005 (UTC)

I wouldn't call it support for trolls - I'd call it assuming good faith. As your userpage is listed with examples of what we should be doing here (writing an encyclopaedia), I take you more seriously than, say... Anittas. I'll have a word with Bonaparte, to see if I can get him to calm down. Izehar 12:22, 30 December 2005 (UTC)

traitors to their country

G'day Ghirlandajo, would you care to comment on this edit of yours? fuddlemark (fuddle me!) 14:44, 30 December 2005 (UTC)

I cared to comment on fuddlemark's talk page. --Ghirla | talk 16:20, 30 December 2005 (UTC)

It is hardly stalking. I was following up with User:Bryndza something I saw while CSD patrolling, when I noticed an offensive comment. As one does, I decided to ask the commentor about it — I had completely forgotten about you. There are many free dictionaries available online; I suggest you consult one before throwing around such accusations in future. And try to remain civil, even when you're talking to people with surnames you think they shouldn't have. Cheers, fuddlemark (fuddle me!) 16:27, 30 December 2005 (UTC)

Answered on fuddlemark's talk page. --Ghirla | talk 16:29, 30 December 2005 (UTC)

I found this edit to be a little out of order, too. May I ask why you think fuddlemark is stalking you? Such allegations are quite serious, and will lead to blocking action, so please be doubly sure of what you're saying, and that you're not simply over-reacting a little. Rob Church ^Talk 16:39, 30 December 2005 (UTC)

It's a pity that you didn't find this a little bit out of order, too. I hope that Mark learned his lessons, so don't start it again. I assume his good faith and believe that there will be no ground to accuse him of anything improper in the future. Case closed. --Ghirla | talk 16:46, 30 December 2005 (UTC)

Uzbeks

Hello Ghirla

70.122.73.105 User's contributions to Uzbeks article is like attempt to advertise Persians and blacken Turkic people. Do you think it is important to restore older versions

Happy New Year --AcademicResearch 17:23, 30 December 2005 (UTC)

OK, I will look into the matter. --Ghirla | talk 17:25, 30 December 2005 (UTC)

Blocked

You have been blocked for 24 hours, due to your violation of the three-revert rule on Anti-Romanian discrimination. Please feel free to return after the block expires, but also please make an effort to discuss your changes further in the future. —David Levy 18:14, 30 December 2005 (UTC)

No, I will not feel free to return after the block expires, even if you ask me to do it. Tomorrow is the first day of the 11-day Christmas holidays here in Russia. Today, just before you blocked me, I managed to initiate three articles, and planned to write dozens more during the holidays. But you knew better than this. Now I see there is thousand pursuits more worthwhile than this wretched wikiproject brimming with nationalism. Let Bonaparte write the articles for myself, I will do something less taxing in terms of wasted time and money. Thank you for pointing this out to me and good bye. --Ghirla | talk 23:29, 30 December 2005 (UTC)

Ghirlandajo, the worst thing that may happen to Wikipedia is the likes of Bonaparte chase contributors like you out. They did chase me away from one article once and I mostly managed to hold the ground elsewhere while it takes time and patience. While David and Izehar may have their gentlement conversations at each others' talk wish mutual appologies to each other, please do not make such decisions too quickly. Wikipedia belongs to all of us and not to the bonapartes. I know a couple of editors that would rejoice from the news that you left and that makes me even more upset. Please do not respond to this message too quickly, give it a thought and give it time. Drop me an email when you want.

С Новым Годом и всего самого хорошего! -RU

З Новим Роком й всього найкращого! - UA

Happy New Year and all the very best! (I don't think English says it as well)

Держись! --Irpen 23:54, 30 December 2005 (UTC)

Ghirlandajo, the Wikipedia is not for Bonaparte or David Lear (or me for that matter). It is for millions of readers of Wikipedia (including thousands of readers of your articles). There are simply nobody to replace you in your role in the Russian segment of English Wikipedia. The enemies of Russia will be happy, people who are interested in Russia will loose. Please do not go. And please be carefull with the rules so not to give your enemies pretext to make you go. abakharev 12:42, 1 January 2006 (UTC)

I suggest you to stop talking about me behind my back. It is not nice of you. I guess I just get used with that...What enemies of Russia? You just made a revert war on Transnistria and I let it you to see the NPOV sections and you came here to speak about me behind my back. He did what he did now let's see how much guts he has. Bonaparte talk 12:49, 1 January 2006 (UTC)

Frankly, I was not talking about you here. I met you on Wikipedia first time and, though, not terribly impressed, do not care much about you so far. abakharev 13:02, 1 January 2006 (UTC)

Firstly, I blocked 156.17.130.10 for 24 hours, due to his/her involvement in the revert war, combined with the vandalistic personal attacks below.

Secondly, I received an e-mail from Ghirlandajo. I won't post it here (for privacy reasons), but I shall make most of my e-mailed reply public:

Your accomplishments don't exempt you from the three-revert rule. (I would block a fellow admin under these circumstances.) In fact, you have far less excuse than a newbie who doesn't know better.

I'll remind you that you were just involved in another dispute, for which you reported a 3RR violation by Anittas (whom I blocked at the same time). Do you believe that you should be held to a lower standard?

And of course, you reverted three times on that article. While not a policy violation, that isn't an entitlement (and certainly is nothing to be proud of). Clearly, you have a problem with revert warring.

Had you contacted me via e-mail or your talk page, apologizing for your infraction and promising to edit responsibly, I would have unblocked you immediately. Instead, you evaded your block, removed another editor's comments from a project page, and posted uncivil, disruptive comments of your own. That's hardly how I would expect a seasoned veteran to behave.

I'm sorry to [learn of your departure from Wikipedia], and I sincerely hope that you'll reconsider.

—David Levy 00:51, 31 December 2005 (UTC)

I listed the four reversions at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/3RR. Per an outside request, I've duplicated that list below:

1, 2, 3, 4. —David Levy 18:29, 30 December 2005 (UTC)

It appeared to me that the greatest threat to this project were nationalists of all sorts, but now I see that the true pest are clueless admins who cannot see a difference between one of the most active wikipedians and a prankster anon troll who provokes him to revert warring. It's just all the same to them. When your hard work is not appreciated, you understand that it's just not worth it. The total number of editors making over 100 edits in a month between June and October remained virtually unchanged, while the number of admins grew from 500 to 750. Everyone amassing a thousand edits or so can pass a formal RfA and scare established wipipedians from editing, and I've seen much of this in the past. That said, I did not "remove another editor's comments from a project page and posted uncivil, disruptive comments of my own". This is either a misgiving or a deliberate spoof. I repeat that an even-handed wikipedian cannot edit normally in an atmosphere of such insupportable accusations and raging nationalism, and I won't.--Ghirla | talk 11:55, 31 December 2005 (UTC)

You violated the three-revert rule. You acknowledged this in the e-mail that you sent to me. Frankly, no, it doesn't matter how active you've been or how valuable your contributions are. No one is above the rules, and an experienced editor (especially one who had just reported someone else's 3RR violation) should know better. If you want to be treated differently than "a prankster anon troll," you need to behave differently, rather than allowing him/her to "provoke" you into a disruptive revert war.

I don't know why you're denying the actions that you perpetrated while evading your block.

Firstly, you restored an offensive description of you that I had removed. Izehar reverted. —David Levy 06:55, 1 January 2006 (UTC)

I was nominated for blocking as "troller, vandal, anti-Romanian, nazi" and you obviously supported those claims when you issued your block. Why delete the main rationale from a summary which you otherwise found credible? --Ghirla | talk 20:15, 1 January 2006 (UTC)

No, I did not support those claims, which clearly constituted a personal attack. I blocked you because you violated the three-revert rule. —David Levy 21:37, 1 January 2006 (UTC)

Secondly, you removed my list of the four reverts that led to the 3RR violation. —David Levy 06:55, 1 January 2006 (UTC)

This happened by accident and was restituted within seconds, and you know that. --Ghirla | talk 20:15, 1 January 2006 (UTC)

How would I know that your removal of the list (during your deliberate block evasion) was accidental? —David Levy 21:37, 1 January 2006 (UTC)

Please learn to cite the edits correctly. --Ghirla | talk 20:15, 1 January 2006 (UTC)

In what manner did I cite an edit incorrectly? —David Levy 21:37, 1 January 2006 (UTC)

Thirdly, you posted a message of your own, in which you attempted to wikilawyer your way out of the 3RR violation, and rudely disparaged me (along with the project) in much the same manner as above. Izehar reverted. —David Levy 06:55, 1 January 2006 (UTC)

As a much more experienced editor than yourself, why can't I voice my opinion concerning your actions? Wikipedia is supposed to be "free for everyone to edit". --Ghirla | talk 20:15, 1 January 2006 (UTC)

As an "experienced editor," you're well aware of the fact that blocked users aren't supposed to edit anything other than their own talk pages. Even then, WP:CIV and WP:NPA apply.

As I said previously, had you contacted me via e-mail or your talk page, apologizing for your infraction and promising to edit responsibly, I would have unblocked you immediately. —David Levy 21:37, 1 January 2006 (UTC)

In your view, it is free for every anon but not to its most devoted contributors. --Ghirla | talk 20:15, 1 January 2006 (UTC)

I don't know where you got the idea that I treat anonymous editors differently than I treat registered users, let alone the belief that the latter group somehow outranks the former. —David Levy 21:37, 1 January 2006 (UTC)

Fourthly, you once again restored the offensive description (claiming that it was "what [I] blocked [you] for"), along with your aforementioned rant. —David Levy 06:55, 1 January 2006 (UTC)

It is a bad style for an admin to call "rant" some point of view that he doesn't share. --Ghirla | talk 20:20, 1 January 2006 (UTC)

You didn't author that post in an angry manner? —David Levy 21:37, 1 January 2006 (UTC)

So far, you failed to quote a passage from Wikipedia Guidelines that forbids one to edit anonymously. --Ghirla | talk 20:20, 1 January 2006 (UTC)

I don't know what you mean. —David Levy 21:37, 1 January 2006 (UTC)

If you want to make a good admin, please stick to the guidelines and not to your personal opinions. --Ghirla | talk 20:20, 1 January 2006 (UTC)

The three-revert rule is a policy. —David Levy 21:37, 1 January 2006 (UTC)

And now, you attempt to portray yourself as an upstanding Wikipedian who fell victim to a "clueless admin" and "raging nationalism." You claim that everyone else is to blame, and you probably believe it. Well, I'm sorry, but that simply isn't so. I hope that you're able to realize that, and that this will lead to your return to the project. —David Levy 06:55, 1 January 2006 (UTC)

Three revert rule is not a holy cow, and you should know that. No admin is liable to issue the block. He is supposed to look into the matter carefully and not to issue the blocks mechanically. --Ghirla | talk 20:15, 1 January 2006 (UTC)

I investigated the matter very carefully, and found that in addition to committing a 3RR violation, you had just reported another user's 3RR violation (from an edit war in which you participated)! Evidently, you believe that the rule applies to everyone but you. —David Levy 21:37, 1 January 2006 (UTC)

your last phrase is bad faith. You should be deAdmined, after all this little constructive talk here. Tobias Conradi (Talk) 22:33, 6 January 2006 (UTC)

When the real judges mete out punishment, they are supposed to examine the personality of offenders. You can't mete out the same sentence to a seasoned veteran, many times awarded in the past, and to a reckless hooligan, who has been jailed previously. --Ghirla | talk 20:15, 1 January 2006 (UTC)

On the contrary, policy dictates that all parties be treated equally. Unless simple vandalism is involved, it makes absolutely no difference which side is "right"; revert warring is not appropriate. A history of misconduct certainly can factor into an administrator's decision, but even the most impeccable record doesn't grant a user carte blanche to do whatever he/she pleases.

If a perceived 3RR violation outweighs for you numerous days of editing I devoted to this project in the past, well, that's your choice, your wiki-philosophy. The only side that will lose from your block is Wikipedia itself. --Ghirla | talk 20:15, 1 January 2006 (UTC)

At no point have I attempted to downplay your contributions, nor have I requested your departure. I am, however, unwavering in my insistence that you follow the same rules as everyone else. If you're unwilling to do so, that's unfortunate for all of us. —David Levy 21:37, 1 January 2006 (UTC)

Re: Thanks

I notice that you chose not to block a nationalist revert warrior, User:Vasile, for 3RR violation whereas you blocked myself for exactly the same.

Upon confirming that a 3RR violation has occurred, I check for evidence of the user's familiarity with the rule. If I see that he/she has been blocked for this offense, has been warned on his/her talk page, or has discussed or commented on the rule, I block. Otherwise, I issue a warning. In your case, you had just reported another user's 3RR violation, so you obviously were familiar with the rule. In Vasile's case, I saw no such evidence. Now that Vasile has been warned, I would handle any future case with a block.

Vasile deletes my edits whenever he can find them,

That edit was performed by Anittas, whom I blocked for exactly the same duration, at exactly the time (per your report).

spawns revert wars, and you are lending him your support.

I'm doing no such thing. I don't support revert warring by anyone. And frankly, I’m stunned by your assumption that I would draw an automatic connection between Vasile and you.

You are not neutral, face it.

Are you suggesting that I'm biased against Russian people? —David Levy 23:35, 1 January 2006 (UTC)

Blocked 3RR

Do not erase, do not erase, do not remove, do not remove!!!

This is your last warning. The next time you vandalize a page, as you did to Anti-Romanian discrimination, you will be blocked from editing Wikipedia.

This is your last warning. The next time you vandalize a page, as you did to Anti-Romanian discrimination, you will be blocked from editing Wikipedia.

This is your last warning. The next time you vandalize a page, as you did to Anti-Romanian discrimination, you will be blocked from editing Wikipedia.

Polish friends unsigned by 156.17.130.10 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)

Last warning! Blocked 3RR

Do not erase, do not erase, do not remove, do not remove!!!

You have been blocked from editing for vandalism of Wikipedia. The block is for a period of Anti-Romanian discrimination. If you wish to make useful contributions, you are welcome to come back after the block expires. {{{2}}}

You have been blocked from editing for vandalism of Wikipedia. The block is for a period of Anti-Romanian discrimination. If you wish to make useful contributions, you are welcome to come back after the block expires. {{{2}}}

You have been blocked from editing for vandalism of Wikipedia. The block is for a period of Anti-Romanian discrimination. If you wish to make useful contributions, you are welcome to come back after the block expires. {{{2}}}

Polish friends --156.17.130.10 19:43, 30 December 2005 (UTC)

Koniuchy massacre

This is pretty niche article, so I have not much chance for a neutral editor passing by, but still I've requested a third opinion to help us out. I don't have much hope for this, though. I specifically did not want to ask the opinion of any Polish/Lithuanian editors as I know you believe that all the Poles are nationalists and Russophobes :-(. If we are not able to progress with the article in a couple of days, I will request mediation. Have a good New Year !!!! :-) --Lysy ^(talk) 19:44, 30 December 2005 (UTC)

WP:Civility

You should read more careful WP:Civility. You cannot say such bad words without people to change their opinion about you. I know that you are a good editor so please don't go away. Bonaparte talk 20:19, 1 January 2006 (UTC)

mikka is gone

mikka is gone. How many times I told him to stop it? Bonaparte talk 20:33, 1 January 2006 (UTC)

A newbie's request to a Wiki veteran

I have been a Wikipedian for quite a short time, but I have already noticed that amount of work you do here. You also encouraged me when I started. So now I would really like to ask you to stay at the project. Jan.Kamenicek 20:37, 1 January 2006 (UTC)

I would like to thank everyone who encouraged me to continue editing, especially via e-mails. I appreciate your warm words of support but, for the time being, I believe that this project should be punished for its leniency towards nationalist trolls like Bonaparte and for its indifference towards such great editors as User:Mikkalai, who was blocked the very next day on the same article as myself fending off attacks by the same anon. Until well-established wikipedians who wrote hundreds of articles and passer-by anon trolls are treated in the same way, Wikipedia will keep losing its most devoted contributors. I'll take a break from editing Wikipedia until there is a change of approach sufficient for Mikkalai to return to editing. --Ghirla | talk 23:55, 2 January 2006 (UTC)

YES, YES, YES. Some admins are really a pest! There are really great admins that do a good job. I hope most of them are good. But sometimes the admins just are pesty bureacrats. And yes, WP will lose lots of good editors. Tobias Conradi (Talk) 22:37, 6 January 2006 (UTC)

Disgusting?

I already had a chance to remark that I consider your shameless promotion of Romanian nationalism disgusting. The coverage of Romanian topics in this project is scarce, especially compared to the Russian and Polish segments. Instead of improving the standard of that coverage and keeping your pet nationalist trolls at bay, you chose to scare from editing User:Mikkalai, who made more than 50,000 edits to this project but has a misfortune of not sharing your nationalist mythology. That block has been your greatest "contribution" to this project so far. If you envy the reputation of Herostratus, please change your name appropriately. Your low edit count allows you to do it at any time. --Ghirla | talk 23:41, 2 January 2006 (UTC)

And I, Ghirla, also consider your recent actions to be disgusting, if you want to talk in those words. The way you talk to other users is disgusting (as can be seen at the Romanian notice board, in your edit summaries but also at non-Romanian issues). The way you believe that you and Mikka are somehow above Wikipedia policy is disgusting. I did not scare User:Mikkalai from editing, I only enforced a rule that is fundamental part of Wikipedia policy. Is that so hard to understand? Neither you nor Mikka seem to comprehend that both of you were engaged in a revert war and hence should be treated under the 3RR. If I go to the Politics of Russia article and insert a line saying "Russia has become increasingly undemocratic in recent times, to the point where Freedom House classifies it as an unfree country", I am inserting a point of view. You're perfectly entitled to revert that, but as soon as you do so, and I revert back, it becomes a bilateral edit war, not "you trying to revert the edits of some troll". The case was very similar at the controversial articles that "Romanian nationalist trolls" contributed to - it was an edit war between people who shared different views, not between some superior admins and established users, and inferior anons or trolls. The WP:3RR, like all policies, are applied equally. It should never matter that one user has 50,000 edits or not. In the real world, it's like that as well. If the prime minister is caught drink driving, he gets a fine, just like a factory worker. It's like that at wiki too - if Mikka breaks the 3RR, he should get banned, just as you and Anittas got banned. I'm not a nationalist - in fact, as you can see by my edits at Khotyn, I have tried coming to a compromise. However, Mikka was blocked fairly, within policy, and I think your reaction to this is far too melodramatic, and smells very much of an attempt to prevent further blocks under the 3RR so you and Mikka can continue your campaign of intimidating "the trolls" - without any checks and balances from other admins - instead of calmly dealing with them. Don't think I'm going to be intimidated - or made to feel guilty - by any user, just because I sought to enforce policy and act neutrally. Ronline ✉ 02:12, 3 January 2006 (UTC)

FYI, removing Disputes template tags without the agreement of the other party of the dispute is Wikipedia:Vandalism. Removing vandalism is a right and indeed a duty of any editor and 3RR does not applicable in this case. It is not Ghirlandajo's fault that the actions of the admin, who blocked him, were incompetent and/or stupid abakharev 06:02, 3 January 2006 (UTC)

Mikkalai has made more edits than all the Romanian editors taken together, and you know it. Your cronies have long tried to "neutralize" him, and you know this too. Your block of one of the greatest wikipedians while defending your own nation's anon trolls was clearly a backstab intended to scandalise the community. Since you were promoted less than a month ago and still don't know a difference between blocking and banning, you should have asked advise from some more experienced admins than yourself. Also, your rabid nationalist message on my talk page makes it clear that you were a party to the dispute and not neutral at all. Therefore, your actions in support of POV-pushing trolls who spread Romanian nationalist mythology across this project were a clear instance of admin privileges abuse. I will think how the community may best censure your disruptive actions, probably defrocking procedures against yourself would be the best option, and quite instructive for other nationalists too. --Ghirla | talk 21:20, 3 January 2006 (UTC)

Ghirla - you keep on telling me one thing over and over again, that "Mikkalai has made more edits than all the Romanian editors taken together, and you know it." Yes, maybe, but that does not exempt him from Wikipedia policy. You don't seem to understand this. I don't care if he's a great Wikipedian or not - that does not make him immune to justice. What you're proposing is an unfair justice system where established users are treated preferentially even if they breach policy. The other thing you accuse me of is preferential treatment towards Romanians, and you know that that's not true. I supported the 3RR block of Anittas when he broke the rule, and I have told them many times to calm down. However, these "nationalistic Romanian trolls", as you call them, did not break the 3RR rule in the case of the articles Mikka broke it. If they did, I would've blocked them. If they break it, I will block them. The point is that so far they haven't. Now onto the third problem - that Alex raised above. Mikka was not reverting vandalism. Had the Romanian users simply taken the disputed tag off, and Mikka restored it, it would've been anti-vandalism, in which case Mikka could not have been blocked. However, he was restoring to another version of the page. That is, there were two page versions - one supported by the Romanians and one by Mikka. Hence, that qualifies as an edit war. Mikka reverted to his page version four times. Hence, he breached WP:3RR. And I don't know why both you and Mikka saw 3RR blocking as some sort of personal attack. It isn't, understand that. Read the policy. Instead of trying to understand this, you've talked to me in a very rude way and accused me of a lot of things that have no basis. Now, onto the fourth thing - the "rabid nationalist message" Huh? Please tell me when I ever insulted you in a nationalistic way. I'd like to know. Ronline ✉ 07:11, 4 January 2006 (UTC)

Just to make it clear, speaking about removing tags vandalism I was talking about Ghirlandajo, whose "sin" was exactly this - four times restoring Disputed tag. I am not that familiar with the Mikkalai's sin, but, obviously, been an administrator he had a duty to block the vandal if he considered the edits as vandalism, not to play a silly revert game.

Talking about the rules, it is the question of the future of Wikipedia, whether we want it to be a place that creates a high-quality reference material, that the world never seen before, or if it is a social club where everybody is having a great time. The first task require that some great wikipedian include Jimbo Wales, Mikkalai, Ghirlandajo, etc., etc. to have more rights than an anonymous trolls, for the second task all should be equal and feel relaxed and creative. I thought that Wikipedia can be both, but with the New Year events it seems that Wikipedia becomes a social club for trolls and I probably to old and to busy to participate in it. abakharev 12:39, 4 January 2006 (UTC)

Welcome back ! :-)

Despite our many controversies, I'm glad you've decided to come back to editing on English Wiki. --Lysy ^(talk) 11:57, 4 January 2006 (UTC)

No, I have not. Not until you continue accusing me of vandalism and rabidly revert warring. You, Molobo, and AndriyK have made such a nice team of editors that I wouldn't bother to edit Wikipedia until such a perfect team "works" there together. --Ghirla | talk 17:20, 4 January 2006 (UTC)

How dare you to say this to my friends Lysy user:Molobo and user:AndriyK? I don't let you do that. Bonaparte talk 17:25, 4 January 2006 (UTC)

I've checked the IPs that has vandalised your page recently, and contrary to what you might have thought, it did not come from Romania, but from Moscow, http://info-trade.ru/ . I thought you might want to know this. --Lysy ^(talk) 13:07, 4 January 2006 (UTC)

So, there are four IPs who vandalized my page these days - Romanian, Polish, Uzbek, and Muscovite... International mafia :)... --Ghirla | talk 13:09, 4 January 2006 (UTC)

Hello Ghirla. As you can probably tell, most of us are absolutely delighted that you have decided to stay. I would like to welcome you back and take the (rather late) occasion to wish you a happy new year and give you a barnstar as a thank you for all the hard work you have put into Wikipedia. Izehar 19:35, 4 January 2006 (UTC)

WP:NPA

I am here for friendly advice. Please here me out. I noticed your edit summary and that had taken my attention. Such an edit summary (rv deletions and desultory comments by anon) is highly inaproporate (name-calling). Please do not bite newbies. Perhaps this was an unintentional mistake as I know you are quite an experienced wikipedian, so I know you wont take these comments personal. We all get carried away sometimes. I am just checking/reminding. --Cool Cat^Talk|@ 20:27, 5 January 2006 (UTC)

Gediz, I wish I had such good mentors as yourself. Then I would always stick to civility, even in relations with the nationalist trolls who seem to stalk me these days. Thanks for the reminder, anyway. --Ghirla | talk 20:50, 5 January 2006 (UTC)

My Request for Adminship

Hey man, thanks a lot for voting in my RfA, I got it! :) If you need anything, just give me a shout. PS. It seems also that a welcome back is in order :) Welcome back! - FrancisTyers 00:56, 6 January 2006 (UTC)

Marian columns

Thanks for your kind evaluation. You were right, I was prompted to write the article thanks to your adding the Marian columns link to the Holy Trinity Column article. I really hated that red link and so I decided to turn it blue ;-))

I am glad you are back. Jan.Kamenicek 13:19, 6 January 2006 (UTC)

Krom

Hello Ghirla, I think that what you have written on your userpage about Bonaparte is not very constructive and IMO could never result in reconciliation between you two. The only reason trolls troll is to seek attention - if Bonaparte is a troll, then you are giving him his much-craved attention (I thought you didn't feed trolls). Either way, I think it creates an unpleasant atmosphere and will inevitably prolong the bitter feelings between you and him. Also, your image Image:Krom.jpg has been deleted, you may want to remove it from your userpage. Izehar 00:52, 7 January 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for the reminder. Firstly, my reconciliation with malicious trolls is out of question, and Bonaparte is the worst troll I have met here as yet. Secondly, I should avert other editors about my opinion about him, because he slanders myself on every second page he posts on. Thirdly, I will restore the image within days, as I always do when my images are deleted without prior warning. --Ghirla | talk 01:00, 7 January 2006 (UTC)

Well is not good to talk about me like that, do you know that? For the records, I have no conflict with Ghirla so no reconciliation is needed. Besides the fact that he keep calling me a troll and so on, you can check my history edits I never used his language. It seems that he still don't get it. How many times I told you to read WP:Civility. Most of your attacks I ignore them because I know I have better things to do, but you keep repeating yourself like a robot. It looks very bad and the whole community of contributors have seen your real face. I'm afraid it will took a long time until you can change it. Bonaparte talk 08:07, 7 January 2006 (UTC)

Go away troll. I said hundred times that I don't feed trolls and don't speak to you. --Ghirla | talk 21:13, 7 January 2006 (UTC)

how can an image be deleted without warning? who did it in that case? Tobias Conradi (Talk) 04:56, 7 January 2006 (UTC)

I have no idea as to that. --Ghirla | talk 21:13, 7 January 2006 (UTC)

Slavs image

Hi, do you think this image is fairuse and may be tagged {bookcover}? IMHO it is neither low-resolution, nor does it illustrate the book in question. I'm not sure what to do with it. --Ghirla | talk 23:34, 5 January 2006 (UTC)

Image:Slavs.jpg is a curious image. Certainly doesn't qualify as a book cover, seeing as how there is no title or author visible. Very atmospheric, but without any source or provenance, it doesn't seem like something we can justify. Anyway, we have hundreds of better images on here and on commons to illustrate the article, what with contemporary photos of people, medieval engravings and artifacts, classic paintings, and so forth. So let's drop this one. Stan 03:10, 7 January 2006 (UTC)

Stan, I agree that Antidote's image abuses Wikipedia fairuse policies. Go ahead. --Ghirla | talk 21:13, 7 January 2006 (UTC)

Askold and Dir - unhealthy fit of pedantism

I think this is a very curious topic, while being a landmark in history of Christianity has completely ommmited this point before a couple of my edits. I am unable to get the timeline right based solely on web sources: one is this [3] (feels like Normanist site though) 860 - surprise attack, which only failed due to miraculous storm summoned by a religious procession. Between 864-867 a party is sent to negotiate peace and ask to convert to Christianity. And Photius claims this as his great achievment in 867. The sequence of events is corroborated by Primary Chronicle but the year is 866. This is repeated by several websites, I think it is just in place of 860s, i.e. 860-869. And the 864 looks strange, and by some coincidence it is the date of Edward Gibbon's Decline

Footnote 59: It is to be lamented, that Bayer has only given a Dissertation de Russorum prima Expeditione Constantinopolitana, (Comment. Academ. Petropol. tom. vi. p. 265 - 391.) After disentangling some chronological intricacies, he fixes it in the years 864 or 865, a date which might have smoothed some doubts and difficulties in the beginning of M. Leveque's history.

I need your big-brother input there.–Gnomz⁰⁰⁷(?) 03:05, 8 January 2006 (UTC)

BTW, I beg not to kill me for Petr Baranovsky, I do not mind wholesale overwrite of my bastard of a stub and move to Peter Baranovsky too, I'm sorry.–Gnomz⁰⁰⁷(?) 03:13, 8 January 2006 (UTC)

DYK query

Hi Ghirla, I've tried to answer your query here as we can get more views in this forum. On an entirely different note, I saw you remarking somewhere that the new admins are not up to the mark. As a new admin who has just finished a month, I'd always welcome constructive criticism on my talkpage. Please feel free to give your comments there. I respect your views as a senior admin. btw, this page has taken a lot of time to load on my browser. You may want to archive it. --Gurubrahma 14:04, 8 January 2006 (UTC)