![]() |
On7 August, 2006, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the articleA Villa Medicea di Pratolino, which you nominated. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the "Did you know?" talk page. |
![]() |
On7 August, 2006, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Suyab, which you created. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the "Did you know?" talk page. |
--ALoan (Talk) 10:34, 31 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
![]() |
OnJune 1, 2007, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Ice March, which you created or substantially expanded. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page. |
Good work Ghirla. Great to see you around again. Blnguyen (bananabucket) 02:35, 1 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Too bad you're not a bureaucrat either to promote me, rather than correcting your comment! :-) NikoSilver 13:39, 31 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Ghirlandajo,
I am the author of the article 'Suprasl Lavra'. I titled the article 'Suprasl Lavra' because that is the title that the monastery is known by in Poland, and natives of Suprasl are told that it was one of only four such holy places in the Russian Empire. I had looked on the history page of the official website and they didn't mention the date that it was given the distinction of 'Lavra' (address is http://www.monaster-suprasl.pl/ but they use the term Lavra throughout the page (Polish term Ławra, declined as Ławrze). I had called the monastery about where I could find out and cite the information. The reply was that 1) The term lawra ws given by the Patriarch of Constantinople at its foundation in the 1500's and 2) The only place that the person knew to cite this information was in an old Russian book from the late 1800's, and that he would provide the name to me if I called back tomorrow. My question is will this suffice, and since you speak Russian, would you be able to find sources on the Lavra in Russian. If what local lore say is true, there were extensive pilgramages here during the period of Russian rule, and the Orthodox church was promoted and protected by the imperial government, which would hint that there would be a lot of literature about it in Russian (hopefully) thanking you in advance for your trouble, --Orestek 20:09, 31 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Lazica is a Graeco-Roman designation for the region known to the medieval Georgian (and Armenian) annals as Egrisi (hence, the name of Mingrelia). --KoberTalk 08:20, 1 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
It is getting very dirty now: [1]. Actually, I had never heard of this guy Miskin before I saw your exchange with Swatjester. I had a look at Mardavich's talk page history (I wonder if everybody involved in this case did that) and saw that he had "archived away" comments by Miskin and by an admin who had warned him in a different case. Oh, and in case you wondered, I ahve never got any e-mail from Miskin. Checked just now. --Pan Gerwazy 09:04, 1 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Ghirlandajo, I have nothing against releasing the emails. Like I said, I even screenshotted them so that everyone would be able to see them. However, I did make a promise of confidentiality. I'm contacting the people involved to see if they have issues with being identified. It's a little slow, because it's more than one. I have a great deal of respect for you. If you would like to see them, I have no problem showing them to you, provided you keep it to yourself and the ArbCom, until I am told that I can publically release them. ⇒ SWATJester Denny Crane. 22:27, 1 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
![]() |
OnJune 4, 2007, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Kamyana Mohyla, which you created or substantially expanded. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page. |
Thanks again Ghirla. Blnguyen (bananabucket) 02:45, 4 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Andrey, I need your help. Please look at the Putin thread on the Humanities desk (3 June). What is it that Jack has written? Love Clio the Muse 13:14, 4 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Boris:
Another Gokturk entry. Are there any other Russian sources on this guy that you might be able to tap into? Briangotts (Talk) (Contrib) 16:37, 4 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Like Clio, I am astonished to discover that English is not your first language. To have your cradle tongue be language with a different alphabet and a different structure, too, and not to have spent time speaking with native speakers is almost beyond belief. (I do believe you, though; I am getting used to the facts of the great skill, talent and training of so many of the Ref Desk participants.) Most of the English used on the web is of such abysmal quality that I am further impressed that you quote it as a principal source. Perhaps you have access to sites that I have never come across. Bielle 19:16, 4 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
![]() |
OnJune 5, 2007, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Kul-Oba, which you created or substantially expanded. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page. |
Thanks again Ghirla. Good to see you around again. Blnguyen (bananabucket) 06:50, 5 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for contributing to Wikipedia, Ghirlandajo! However, your edit here was reverted by an automated bot that attempts to remove spam from Wikipedia. If you were trying to insert a good link, please accept my creator's apologies, but note that the link you added, matching rule alexa\.com, is on my list of links to remove and probably shouldn't be included in Wikipedia. Please read Wikipedia's external links guidelines for more information, and consult my list of frequently-reverted sites. For more information about me, see my FAQ page. Thanks! Shadowbot 09:20, 6 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I noticed that you reverted my edit in this article. Would you care to explain on the discussion page the reason for it? If you have concerns over the neutrality of the article please note your objections on the discussion page. As of yet there are none. I hope you saw what kind of tag you reverted. Reverts without discussion are counterproductive. Please start dialogue istead of rivert war. --Hillock65 12:43, 6 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Went through about half of it, will finish the rest later. Briangotts (Talk) (Contrib) 22:05, 6 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Hi. Please see [5]. Thanks. --Grandmaster 10:30, 7 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I am looking in on them. Briangotts (Talk) (Contrib) 16:18, 7 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Ghirla, I noticed you changed my Желаю Вам успехиtoЖелаю Вам успехов. While I can see why the latter might make sense, I seem to recall learning and hearing the former, and it gets a fair number of Google hits. Is the former version really incorrect? --Reuben 02:19, 8 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
An image that you uploaded or altered, Image:Zvenigorod_savva.jpg, has been listed at Wikipedia:Possibly unfree images because its copyright status is disputed. If the image's copyright status cannot be verified, it may be deleted. You may find more information on the image description page. You are welcome to add comments to its entry at Wikipedia:Possibly unfree images if you are interested in it not being deleted. Thank you. Butseriouslyfolks 05:16, 8 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Hi. I made that block because Hillock65 had requested that Russianname stop reverting his talk page, and Russianname refused, reverting it 14 times in one day. The sheer amount of reverting without discussion looked pretty out of control, so I blocked him to prevent the situation from escalating. It's only for 24 hours, but if you know Russianname and feel that's too long, I would be okay with shortening it. Apparently Hillock65 got blocked, too. --Masamage ♫ 17:46, 8 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Your comment was not "mysteriously deleted", it was moved to Wikipedia_talk:Requests_for_arbitration/Miskin/Evidence by an ArbCom clerk. If you read the rules on top of the evidence page, it explicitly says "Do not edit within the evidence section of any other user". --Mardavich 18:36, 8 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Ghirla. I in no way deliberately left you out of the list of people who had commented; your opinion is as completely valid as every other contributor. Please chalk that error on my part down to a simple oversight - I didn't mean to offend. Sorry! Neil ╦ 20:06, 8 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
As you concentrate on pre-20th century Russian history, you might be able to comment on this issue. Is it correct to say that Vändra, the birthplace of Lydia Koidula, was in 1843 located in northern Livonia? ...or should we say southern Estonia? Is mentioning Livonia undue weight? Please comment at Talk:Lydia Koidula. -- Petri Krohn 00:16, 9 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for digging up an appropriate categfory. --Wetman 23:37, 9 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
![]() |
On10 June, 2007, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Valley of Geysers, which you created or substantially expanded. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page. |
--howcheng {chat} 01:36, 10 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Hello, Andrey. Thanks for your interest in the articles I have written on the Russian royals. By early next month I would write about Mikhail Pavlovich, at u request. However, information about him it is scarce. I want to ask for you’re help adding to my Romanov’s articles their name in Cyrillic alphabet. Thanks Miguel 1:16, 10 June 2007 (UTC)
Thanks for letting me know. No, I don't think it was I who semiprotected it, but it doesn't matter. I'm OK with it being SP'd. ←Humus sapiens ну? 09:08, 10 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
May I ask why you use forum as reference for death date[6]? Its not really neccessary as nobody disputes date of death(at other article I wanted only ref for claims of him not being deported to USSR by UK) and as our friend Petri said, its not really good source anyway[7].--Staberinde 15:38, 10 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Hello. With regard to the territorial changes, that is meant for the changes after the war, not during. The Khazars never occupied the territory, they left it (even before the war with Byzantium was completely finished). Also, they invaded Georgia (Iberia) and Caucasus Albania, they never invaded Azerbaijan, which at that time was the area below the Araxes river.Hajji Piruz 20:25, 10 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Regarding the Estonian Age of Awakening business, please note the following:
1. Withdrawing a nomination is not in itself an attempt to close the AfD. You're welcome to add the relevant templates when you withdraw the nomination, but if you don't do that, the AfD remains live until an administrator or another user adds them. I would have closed it myself, but since I was one of the ones recommending the article be kept, I thought it was best to wait for another admin or user to do it. Given that the AfD remained open, moving and commenting out recommendations that other users had made isn't a good idea. Yes, they should probably have noticed that the discussion was no longer active, but the thing was still open.
2. While I can appreciate your dislike for comments and questions being included in an AfD's main page, please note that there's actually no requirement that they be moved elsewhere.
3. In relation to the question you were asked about why the debate had been categorised a certain way, please remember that it wasn't (or at least it shouldn't have been) a judgement on you. Rather, it was a question. The manner in which you replied was abrupt at best. BigHaz - Schreit mich an 23:38, 10 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The one I put up was an approximation of a map in an old Turkish historical atlas, but it might be possible to do an expansion map. Briangotts (Talk) (Contrib) 12:07, 11 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Please see Wikipedia:Images_and_media_for_deletion/2007_June_11#Image:GokturkFlag.png. Thanks. Briangotts (Talk) (Contrib) 13:46, 11 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I am flabergasted. --Briangotts (Talk) (Contrib) 13:21, 19 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
You are right, of course, that it is not that critical. The flag has been removed from all the articles that had it (I would be wary of it being re-inserted though). I wonder how many of the other equally fictitious "Flags of the Great Turkish Empires" have been reproduced on WP. I just found the attitude that FOTW was a reliable source by itself, and that slapping the word "alleged" made everything ok, shocking. Briangotts (Talk) (Contrib) 17:40, 19 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Wikipedia:Mediation Cabal/Cases/2007-06-10 Podilsko-Voskresenska Line. --Kuban Cossack 17:23, 11 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Ghirlando. Sorry, I looked, but I wasn't able to find any English-language material on this. Jayjg (talk) 15:38, 12 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Ghirla- some pictures that might be relevant. [10] I don't know what the copyright status is but I expect that they expired under Soviet law. Briangotts (Talk) (Contrib) 14:18, 19 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
![]() |
On12 June, 2007, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Third Perso-Turkic War, which you created or substantially expanded. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page. |
--howcheng {chat} 16:39, 12 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
You might want to add this, and the linked articles, to your watchlist. Also check this out: Estonian Orthodoxy in the 1990s. The section "Post-Soviet Developments" is an excellent presentation of the Estonian legal position. What do you call a situation, where the state denies a church the right to legally practice religion. In China it would be called "religious prosecution". -- Petri Krohn 04:22, 13 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I'm curious of your bold movings and whether the edits like this are the breach of WP:NCNT. Thanks for any feedback :) --Brand спойт 09:52, 13 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
![]() |
Did you know? was updated. On 14 June, 2007, a fact from the article Estonian national awakening, which you recently nominated, was 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. |
--howcheng {chat} 02:04, 14 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Hi, Ghirlandajo, long time without knowing about you!
I see that you are active again in this wikipedia, Mnogaya leta! I write to you because of a question related to Brick Gothic. I wrote a short section at the end of the article about a kind of Gothic architecture made of brick, the Gothic Mudéjar. I suppose that there is a coined use of the term because of the great quantity of Gothic architecture made of brick around the Baltic Sea. However, "Brick Gothic" is also a clear reference to any style of Gothic made almost enterely of brick, even more if the material is an important part of the aesthetics of the building. If you don´t find proper the inclussion of the section in the article, you could preserve the reference, at least in "See Also", because there is a strong relation between the title and the Mudéjar Gothic, that, as you probably know, had the brick as its main material and aesthetic resort. Yours and welcome again,--Garcilaso 12:49, 14 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
New Gokturk article. Briangotts (Talk) (Contrib) 17:40, 14 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Hi again. Could you do some clarifying regarding the person on this portrait, if possible? Because of fruitless googling, the caption currently makes no sense for me. Consequently I don't know whether she is Alexandra Nikolayevna Lamsdorf or Maria Ivanovna Lamsdorf. Thanks in advance. --Brand спойт 20:46, 14 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
For the Lev Gumilev article: If a person both popular and controversial at the same time, this means that the person is influential. Whether his ideas are accepted by the mainstream of academicians or not is another question. For the Nomadic empires article: It's better to summarize each section and make the article more concise and comprehensive, since each section already have wiki-articles. I'd like to do edit but i'm under arbitration related with my conflicts with Tajik. For this reason, i can only comment on this. If you'd like discuss the issues, you're welcome. Regards. E104421 22:30, 14 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
(Underscore mine.) —SlamDiego←T 04:06, 15 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Very disappointing, Thebainer. Very. That's not what you were given the tools for. --Ghirla-трёп- 15:18, 16 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
![]() |
Did you know? was updated. On 16 June, 2007, a fact from the article Giuseppe Alessandro Cardinal Furietti, which you recently nominated, was featured in that section on the Main Page. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page. |
![]() |
Did you know? was updated. On 16 June, 2007, a fact from the article Furietti Centaurs, which you recently nominated, was featured in that section on the Main Page. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page. |
![]() |
Did you know? was updated. On 16 June, 2007, a fact from the article 1904 Moscow tornado, which you recently nominated, was 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. |
--Carabinieri 16:30, 16 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
No I only end up in those when someone keeps vandalizing page such as that one. Hmrox 17:27, 16 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I'm sorry for the confusion about the article. It was mistake and won't happen again. Hmrox 17:34, 16 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I really appreciate your advices. In my particular opinion (not much important, of course!!) i think your theory about kievan origin of Agatha is true. Sorry if I had any wrong thing in the text of Agatha in wikipedia; i tried to divided the kievan theory in two parts: daughter or sister of Yaroslav the Wise. If this was wrong, i really appreciate if you think is better a correction, do it. Thanks again and sorry for my bad english (im peruvian and a tried to learn fast!!) Aldebaran69 23:04, 16 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, we’re not talking about legitimate POV disputes here, we’re talking complete lunacy. The guy is quarrelling with the most basic linguistic terms, such as “loan word” and “borrowing”, as well as the scholarly history of the Armenian language. I could have waded in on that talk page but I couldn’t see the point. He’s not some ingénu who’s made an honest mistake and will accept correction, he’s obviously there to push his own crank theory come what may. Reasoning with him is a waste of everybody’s time. The only solution is to remove him from the topic area. Since this is an encyclopaedia, such editors are far more harmful than casual vandals or hot-tempered users who engage in a bit of mudslinging behind the scenes. We need to have sanctions against editors who persistently and deliberately violate policies like WP:NPOV and WP:NOR in order to add fringe or extremist content here. --Folantin 17:37, 16 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
You're right... I'll do my best. Regards PHG 20:42, 17 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Is there some off-site communication and coordination going on here? See history. -- Petri Krohn 15:30, 18 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
![]() |
On18 June, 2007, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Aleksey Suvorin, which you created or substantially expanded. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page. |
--GeeJo (t)⁄(c) • 15:48, 18 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
![]() |
Did you know? was updated. On 19 June, 2007, a fact from the article Ferry de Clugny, which you recently nominated, was 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. |
--howcheng {chat} 07:03, 19 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
You might be interested to know that Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Petri Krohn has been filed. Digwuren 20:10, 19 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Dear Ghirlandajo,
I am new to Wikipedia, so my entry into the "Sherwood Forest" of rules, codes, people, and articles begins with the first test.
May I ask you kindly to have a look at my article titled Destructive creativity? It was placed on DYK , then nominated to AfD. I don't know people, albeit I am attuned to comments, made some updates, still need help. Your attention is highly appreciated.
Sincerely, Steveshelokhonov 10:13, 21 June 2007 (UTC) LA, CA. PS: Hermitage, fab Velázquez.[reply]
is now an FAC. Since you did some work on this article I thought you might be interested. Briangotts (Talk) (Contrib) 15:16, 21 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Reading your comments on user talk:Jimbo Wales about user:EVula's user page and his collection of diffs (which, needless to say, I find hilarious although I believe I understand your concerns wrt new editors seeing stuff like that), I wondered what you might think of my own user page. In case you decide to drop by occasionally, if you're not using Firefox, please try here if the page is not displaying correctly. Btw: I read your thoughts on tendentious editing and the division of editors in insiders and outsiders, and I really like the way you soft-spokenly and matter-of-factly tell the uncomfortable truth. —AldeBaer 13:22, 22 June 2007 (UTC)
Hello, you recently edited Treaty of Shimoda. Your edits made the article more encyclopedic and thus more neutral, many thanks for that! I also noticed you claimed some things mentioned to be 'patent lies'. The (agressively) clashing of Russians with Japanese (vice verse as well of course) has been documented in some sources, which I have referenced in the talk page now. Feel free to post a source as to why these are patent lies, so we could improve the article in a critical manner. Keep up the good work. T.Jansen 16:23, 22 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I know you don't want me posting on your talk page, but making baseless accusations directed at other editors is not something you should be doing. This is your final warning regarding personal attacks. BigHaz - Schreit mich an 01:32, 23 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
![]() |
Your Featured picture candidate has been promoted
Your nomination for featured picture status, Image:Maslenitsa kustodiev.jpg, gained a consensus of support, and has been promoted. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates. Raven4x4x 02:17, 23 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
|
Congratulations, and thanks for nominating it. Raven4x4x 02:17, 23 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
![]() |
The 200 DYK Medal | |
sorry that this is a bit late, but you are deserving of the 200 DYK medal!! You are now either the first or the second contributor to recieve this award. If you are the first, your name will be noted down on the template for this medal. Keep up the great work! -- Anonymous DissidentTalk |
Extent of medieval Kannada literature Not sure what you mean. Do you mean a better hook or better topic?Dineshkannambadi 16:49, 24 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I have changed the hook completely to reflect something unique about medieval Kannada literature.Dineshkannambadi 16:59, 24 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the restructuring.Dineshkannambadi 18:28, 24 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, it is terrible. I'm summering in C15 Provence at the moment, but will give it a quick treatment soon, & return later, I hope. I don't have much specific material on him that I can think of, but it won't be hard to improve on the current state. Johnbod 22:17, 24 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I think the general idea is OK, but the implementation (both content- and technical-wise) indeed leaves much to be desired. Also, the template should definitely not be present in all articles which are remotely related to the subject, but only in those listed in the template itself (again, the list in the template could use some refining). I think Whlee is gradually moving towards understanding this, but if you want to give him a nudge, that might speed up the process a little.
I do have this template on my to-(re-)do list, but I don't really know when I'll get a chance to work on it. If you beat me to it, I sure ain't gonna complain :) Best,—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); 14:47, 25 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
![]() |
Did you know? was updated. On 25 June, 2007, a fact from the article Das Dritte Reich, which you recently nominated, was 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. |
--Carabinieri 15:03, 25 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for putting this forward, Andrey. We work well together! I intend to write a brief article shortly on an American conspiracy to kidnap George III in 1775. I'll pass it over to you as soon as it is ready. Clio the Muse 23:17, 25 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
PS On the Suvorov question I added some material that you might want to work into the article. Clio the Muse 03:22, 26 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
While I agree this is pointless junk message which I'd have ignored, please don't reverts edits to my talkpage; I am perfectly capable of ignoring trash or dealing with perceived PAs myself. Thank you, -- Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk 17:33, 26 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Hi! I probably need your help or comment regarding dispute occured in Template:World War II where user Piotr Mikołajski inserted the USSR in a list of Axis powers mentioning Molotov-Ribbentrop pact. The template consequently was protected by administrator according with his request. The issue was already discussed in the talk page and it seems that consensus was established not to include the USSR in the list of Axis powers.--Dojarca 20:47, 26 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
![]() |
Did you know? was updated. On June 27, 2007, a fact from the article Antonio del Duca, which you recently nominated, was 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 against Ghirla. Blnguyen (bananabucket) 03:28, 27 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
![]() |
Did you know? was updated. On June 28, 2007, a fact from the article Salerno Mutiny, which you recently nominated, was 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. |
and again....Blnguyen (bananabucket) 01:57, 28 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
could you chime in at Chaldean again? I don't want to break the 3RR over this (even though this may be rollback-able), but I do not think we should allow this sort of thing. Even patriots are required to use their brains on Wikipedia. dab (𒁳) 09:32, 27 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for adopting this. I created it as it were with my left hand as a very quick writeup; it's looking good now. dab (𒁳) 13:12, 27 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Dear Ghirlandajo, you added an NPOV tag to the Looted art article without describing the reasons/participating at the Talk page as requested by the NPOV rules. I assume, based on your edits, that you do not agree with the looting of the Sistine Madonna - nevertheless I believe that the Sistine Madonna serves as an important icon of the lets call it "confiscation" of German art collections by the Soviets, simply because of its iconic value. I even took into consideration your concerns and added a proper reference that extensively describes the Soviet Looting of Germany - focusing on the Sistine Madonna. The article even uses the very same terms for the headline and some sub chapters "Soviet Looting", "Sistine Madonna". I understand that such facts - as any truth - are not always comfortable to anyone, but it is nevertheless part of our shared history. The claim that the Soviet Union did not "steal", "plunder" or "loot" is extensively discussed in contemporay literature - its a myth. That notion is for instance discussed in "Mythmaking in the New Russia: Politics and Memory During the Yeltsin Era" by By Kathleen E. Smith, Available: http://books.google.com/books?id=hXZEPJQcWLYC&pg=PA70&dq=dresden+gallery+stolen&sig=3yEQ9_FVthWEvwMtP5jIYFug8kg#PPA70,M1 - the Time Magazine, also referenced in your article describes one such perspective: "Now Russian nationalists are getting into the act, demanding that their government stand firm on the issue and give nothing back. One may not agree with them, but their arguments are at least understandable. Suppose you are a patriotic Russian in your 60s. Your childhood was passed amid the horrors and suffering of the Great Patriotic War, in which millions died to defend the Motherland against Nazism. Then you survived Stalin, watched the utopian fantasies of the Dictatorship of the Proletariat go into sclerosis in the 1960s and '70s, and saw the imperium collapse in the '80s. Today the yellow arches of McDonald's shed their plastic gleam on Red Square, and gangsterism rules instead of socialist virtue. You know the Nazis inflicted incalculable damage on your nation, with the intent to obliterate all traces of 'Slavic culture' from the earth. Why, in this time of collapsed dreams and national humiliation, should you listen to Germans preaching about restitution?" (I could add more references if necessary but I rely on our goodwill) ... I understand that you like to uphold certain values, dreams and notions - as we all do - but I do not think that we want wikipedia to become a safe place for soviet, nazi, russian, german, american nationalistic propaganda ... Please refrain from deleting referenced statements from other editors just because they might appear inconvenient, and lets instead work together. How about adding proper references to the Nazi plunder of Europe (I actually started it) or the American plunder and looting (Meadows, Quedlinburg, Iraq ...?) Thank you, have a nice day, and Bolschoe Spasibo. (My russian isnt as good anymore ... :) )Okinawasan 13:14, 27 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Another addition: I just received "The Amber Room. The Fate of the Worlds Greatest Lost Treasure" by Catherine Scott-Clark and Adrian Levy (Nonfiction) from Amazon. As you might expect i kept looking for the photograph you added to the Looted Art article and which is still included in the Amber Room article. On page 60 the book reproduces the photograph (actually two) and a proper description: "Vica Plauda leaves the room. She returns with a tattered folder ... In our hands is the only surviving colour record positive of the 'Eight Wonder of the World' ... made in 1917 by a Russian officer who fled with it to Paris." Vica Plauda is sourced as the head of the Photographic Section of the Catherine Palace, the image is already from 1917, and the office fled to Russia ... :) (On this page http://www.geo.uw.edu.pl/HOBBY/AMBER/amberroom.htm, Warszaw University, it says at "Tsarskoe Syolo in Russia, the state in 1940", I believe your descriptions are wrong and I leave it up to you to doublecheck, doublecheck, and change the misleading edits. Thank you. Poka.Okinawasan 14:01, 27 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks very much - I am most honoured! I'm looking at the BP, & haven't forgotten Matthias G. Johnbod 19:21, 27 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Improving it shouldn't be a problem, though I honestly don't know if I can do much about it's abuse. I haven't dared too much correct the abuse of the religious templates like {{anglicanism}}. Circeus 22:33, 27 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
![]() |
Did you know? was updated. On 28 June, 2007, a fact from the article Dahomey War, which you recently nominated, was 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. |
--Yomanganitalk 12:47, 28 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Many thanks for the star! In fact I was worried no one would so much as read the article, so it's particularly gratifying. --Javits2000 21:32, 28 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
![]() |
The Half Barnstar | |
I hereby award you the Half Barnstar, for your superb work with Clio in generating encyclopaedic content from the Humanities Ref Desk. |
Rockpocket 05:32, 29 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
![]() |
OnJune 30, 2007, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article snokhachestvo, which you created or substantially expanded. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page. |
Thanks for your contributions! Nishkid64 (talk) 23:06, 30 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
![]() |
On1 July, 2007, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Bibliotheca Palatina, which you created or substantially expanded. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page. |
--Carabinieri 09:10, 1 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I did check them all quickly (not counting) on Google scholar. Ostromir was clearly more in the balance than the others, though some are for "Ostromir Gospel Book" & some you can't tell. I'll move it back if you feel strongly, but I'm in no doubt it should really be "gospels", as "gospel" implies that, like the Stonyhurst Gospel, it only contains one of the four. Johnbod 01:11, 2 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Great catch on Romanos II, btw! Johnbod 01:43, 2 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
And you my friend - I thought they'd driven you off for good a few months ago. I'm actually officially still having a breather, but the weather's been shocking. take care --Mcginnly | Natter 23:46, 2 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Andrey, the page on Stephen Sayre, and the alleged American plot against George III, is now newly born. It was conceived as a result of a previous question on the Humanities Desk. I would be pleased if you could cast your eye over it, and make any amendments you consider necessary. Some illustration would be useful. All the very best. Anastasia, aka Clio the Muse 00:17, 3 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Useful ? <splutter> <choke>. Well, if you say so! Bishonen | talk 12:02, 4 July 2007 (UTC).[reply]
![]() |
The Kul Tegin Medal of Honor | |
I, Briangotts, hereby award you with the Kul Tegin Medal of Honor, for much hard work and dedication in expanding coverage of the Göktürks on Wikipedia. --Briangotts (Talk) (Contrib) 02:59, 3 July 2007 (UTC)[reply] |
I appreciate the kind words re:Sargon... It was a chore to get that sorted out but I think it is going to pass FA now. Been meaning to start on Shuekuei but been short on time as well. Briangotts (Talk) (Contrib) 14:17, 5 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
![]() |
Did you know? was updated. On 5 July, 2007, a fact from the article Suvorov's Italian and Swiss expedition, which you recently nominated, was 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. |
--howcheng {chat} 17:08, 5 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
{{citation needed}} tags were added to the two quotes in Suvorov's Italian and Swiss expedition. It's generally agreed that citations should always be cited with footnotes. Do you think you can fix that? Circeus 20:30, 5 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Ghirla, I noticed your back-and-forth on one of the administrative boards today. Then I saw this and the situation has me shaking my head. You're an incredibly productive editor and I not only appreciate your work for the site, I'm grateful to you as one of the people who mentored me when I was new. A lot of people have respected you as a senior Wikipedian.
In my own personal definition, respect means worthy of emulation. You've been around long eough to know site policies and standards better than I do and - heck, we're all human - sometimes it feels like the most honest thing to do is to mince no words before hitting the save page button. So I've got a question for you.
Is the standard you're setting right now the one you want everyone to follow? If it is then I think that would make Wikipedia a bitter place. You've proven you can build the project under those conditions, but most of the rest of us slow down or get derailed. The dilemma where you're concerned is that your actions look like a request to other editors to stop respecting you. If I had seen those threads when I was a new editor and if I had conducted myself the same way, I'd probably have collected a block history and quit the site instead of becoming an administrator.
You have that much effect on people. Whether or not you realize it, you do. Now I'm a bit of a basketball fan and I like analogies. So I'll put the matter this way: who would you rather be, Michael JordanorKobe Bryant?DurovaCharge! 22:36, 5 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
This was a perfectly honest comment. This is not the first I see you obfuscating a perfectly valid request for citation by improperly reversing the burden of evidence. Circeus 23:49, 5 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
![]() |
On6 July, 2007, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Symeon of Polotsk, which you created or substantially expanded. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page. |
--GeeJo (t)⁄(c) • 06:47, 6 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
![]() |
Did you know? was updated. On 6 July, 2007, a fact from the article Vertep, which you recently nominated, was 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. |
-- Nice catch :) GeeJo (t)⁄(c) • 13:46, 6 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
"The three ingredients key to a particular cuisine, vary from culture to culture…" is irrelevant to the article, which is not about any combinations of three ingredients characteristic of various cuisines (which are not called "mirepoix" (see the removed "Holy Trinity" language), but specifically about mirepoix (= onions + carrots + celery.) See talk.Proabivouac 18:27, 7 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Considering how we first met, rather funny: Talk:Fire of Moscow (1812). When I find the time, I may edit Alexander I of Russia later. --Pan Gerwazy 21:00, 7 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
![]() |
Did you know? was updated. On 8 July, 2007, a fact from the article Fernando Santos Costa, which you recently nominated, was featured in that section on the Main Page. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page. |
--GeeJo (t)⁄(c) • 20:29, 8 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Given that her husband and sons both had contacts and activities in Rus' and Bjarmland, I thought you might be interested in this new article (still needs a lot of expansion.) Briangotts (Talk) (Contrib) 19:41, 9 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
![]() |
Did you know? was updated. On 9 July, 2007, a fact from the article Basque witch trials, which you recently nominated, was 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. |
--Nice catch :) GeeJo (t)⁄(c) • 22:20, 9 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
![]() |
Did you know? was updated. On 10 July, 2007, a fact from the article Stephen Sayre, which you recently nominated, was featured in that section on the Main Page. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page. |
--GeeJo (t)⁄(c) • 10:41, 10 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Your comments would be welcome. Briangotts (Talk) (Contrib) 16:21, 10 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Present for you in your email box. Briangotts (Talk) (Contrib) 18:47, 10 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Ghirla. I just wanted to inform you that I have been logging the results of your productive RD-to-article partnership with Clio at Wikipedia:WikiProject Reference Desk Article Collaboration. The project itself is not overly active at the moment (indeed, you, Clio and I appear to be the only people keeping it alive!), but my objective is to have a ongoing record of the tangible, positive effect that RD has had on the whole project. I think it is both informative and important to be able to demonstrate that the RD is more than just a talking shop. Anyway, I just wanted to let you know and to ensure you didn't mind your sterling work being "claimed" by a collective (that essentially consists of you both!) Rockpocket 01:28, 11 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
It seems like this article was written without any reference to how she is perceived in Russia today (Russian Wikipedia has almost nothing about her). Would you look it over? Balcer 21:11, 11 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Hallo Ghirla, the monastery is cited on the sources as Hodegon (it is the word "Hodegetria" that comes from Hodegon, meaning "the monastery of the Guides"). Moreover, it is not a legend that in the monastery there was a spring. The structures which host the spring are actually the only remains of the complex. Finally, I could find mention of its rebuilding by Michael III nowhere in my sources.
Just one last thing: if you agree, I will create a redirect named Church of the Panaghia Hodegetria (Constantinople) and I will put there the category 'Churches of Instanbul'. This will make the categorisation of this stub consistent with that of the rest of the articles about the kilise camiler in Istanbul. What do you think about it? Many Thanks and Regards, Alex2006 08:25, 12 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
![]() |
Did you know? was updated. On 12 July, 2007, a fact from the article Albert Brackmann, which you recently nominated, was 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. |
--Andrew c [talk] 17:05, 12 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Given your diverse interests I thought you might enjoy this new article. Briangotts (Talk) (Contrib) 18:50, 12 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
![]() |
You are being recruited by the Salem Witch Trials Task Force, a collaborative project committed to improving Wikipedia's coverage of the Salem Witch Trials. Join us! |
Psdubow 22:24, 12 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I suspect you've already found out the answer, but just in case you haven't: it's the Italian War of 1551-1559. (See, in particular, the Battle of St. Quentin (1557).) Kirill 22:46, 12 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
He's wrong, and if you agree with him, you are too. The information presented is accurate. --FactsAndHonesty 23:24, 12 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
![]() |
Did you know? was updated. On 13 July, 2007, a fact from the article Ignaz Trebitsch-Lincoln, which you recently nominated, was 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. |
--Yomanganitalk 12:54, 13 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
![]() |
On13 July, 2007, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Krasnaya Polyana, which you created or substantially expanded. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page. |
--Carabinieri 20:03, 13 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I don't disagree about Gelendzhik as it was the very first article I tried this template in, so it's there mostly as a result of testing. Feel free to move it to talk (so it could be moved back when the article grows in size). I don't, however, agree that the template should be removed "on sight". Infoboxes are useful in that they provide the most basic reference information about a place at a glance; often information in the infobox meets all the needs a casual reader might have. I don't know if you noticed, but (apart from Gelendzhik) I never add this infobox to articles which already did not have some other similar infobox (often of a much inferior quality) and I would not, of course, purposefully add it to an article so short that an infobox would be much longer than the actual article.—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); 00:11, 14 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Hello Ghirlandajo! This week I enjoyed the privilege having a discussion with Eiorgiomugini about Shiliuguo Chunqiu, see [12]. I was rather shocked by his incivility. So I did a small research about his way having discussions with other people. After reading your remarks on [13] I am convinced this is just the way that guy talks. You are right, he thinks he owns the articles he has written. Furthermore I think phrases like You could spend your time adding more material about Russian subjects rather than following me around all day long directed to you or So go ahead why bother to make those nasty remarks here and there after my remark I mostly write articles on Chinese and Central-Asian history on Dutch wikipedia give an insight how this fellow thinks. No I will not get out of his way and I think you should treat him the same way as I did in my final remark on [14]. Long live Monty Python. Finally, do you think I can be of any use to [15]? I don't think so, because this is a rather different dispute. Greetings from a fellow sufferer, Guss2 18:20, 14 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I have to disagree with this move and with the subsequent redirect. True, most of the articles that currently link to Ladoga mean to link to Staraya Ladoga, but the total number of articles linking this way is quite small, and readers would be much better served if those links were straightened out to link directly to where they are supposed to (i.e., to "Staraya Ladoga"). Folks typing in "Ladoga" in a search box are as likely to expect landing in the article about the lake as in the article about the village. Having "Ladoga" redirect to the dab page covers both contingencies while redirecting it to some arbitrarily chosen article from the dab list is a clumsy and incomplete solution at best.—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); 22:00, 14 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Ghirlandajo, your edits on the Estophobia AfD like this one are unacceptable. This is disruptive, and you will be blocked if you persist. Please stop. Thanks, Crum375 13:54, 15 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Ghirla, re your latest note, I happen to be in a good position here because I have zero POV in the substantive matter. All I know and care about are our basic content and behavior rules. I can tell you that even if you are 100% correct in the substantive issues, if you use the wrong methods to try to achieve your aims, you will harm yourself and your cause. So try to get to where you want to go by following the rules, and the system will be on your side. Crum375 16:21, 15 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for standing firm and opposing this trollfest and the associated vote staking. Dispite the odds, this time the system did not fail. I do not know what had happened without your contribution. -- Petri Krohn 10:53, 16 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I've seen a microscopic portion of your work, as well as read your user page, and I wonder if you might be interested in reading a somewhat out-of-date essay. I would very much value your thoughts on the topic. Unschool 00:50, 16 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Digwuren's block was long overdue. As for Petri's block, I still question the block reasoning. It was on the basis of WP:OR and NPOV. Well, those are deletion reasons, not block reasons. The block rationale would have to have been disruption and/or 3RR, but the former is not determined by a single person, and the latter doesn't seem to be the case with that user. I don't mean to be legalistic, but we do not *block* for writing with a point of view or writing original research. We *block* for disruption, and having a contrary opinion is not disruption. --Ghirla-трёп- 19:58, 16 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for your support in my successful RfA. I appreciate the trust you and the WP community have in me. Carlossuarez46 22:09, 16 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
![]() |
On16 July, 2007, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Juliana Anicia, which you created or substantially expanded. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page. |
--Carabinieri 23:24, 16 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Ghirla. Could you please refrain from leaving unnecessary comments as you did here? It surely doesn't help at all. Piotrus if free to request a reduction of a block. I've already answered him. As an involved part yin the dispute, i urge you to stop that immediately. Thanks. -- FayssalF - Wiki me up® 11:41, 17 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Left on Berig's talk page:
What do you think? Briangotts (Talk) (Contrib) 19:40, 17 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I actually planned to introduce Category:Novgorod RusorCategory:Rus Khaganate, but I would not object to Category:Rus, too. Category:Varangians is a second option, because there is no evidence connecting, e.g., the Paphlagonian expedition or Bravlin with Varangians. --Ghirla-трёп- 20:10, 17 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I've started a Category:Rus with the Bravlin article, I will go through and start moving some articles from the Kievan categories. If you think I moved something wrongly let me know or move it back. Briangotts (Talk) (Contrib) 20:34, 17 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
![]() |
On18 July, 2007, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Thomas Charnock, which you created or substantially expanded. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page. |
--Yomanganitalk 00:25, 18 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
![]() |
Did you know? was updated. On July 19, 2007, a fact from the article Russian wine, which you recently nominated, was featured in that section on the Main Page. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page. |
Thanks again Ghirla.Blnguyen (bananabucket) 05:06, 19 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
![]() |
OnJuly 25, 2007, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Sergey Sazonov, which you created or substantially expanded. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page. |
![]() |
OnJuly 25, 2007, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Albazinians, which you created or substantially expanded. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page. |
Well done very inteeresting. I had no idea that there were ever Russian settlers in Beijing, but then, what do I know? Blnguyen (bananabucket) 01:20, 26 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
![]() |
OnJuly 27, 2007, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Vladimir Lambsdorff, which you created or substantially expanded. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page. |
Thanks again Ghirla. Blnguyen (bananabucket) 02:05, 27 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Andrey, could you have a look at the Lavrenty Beria page? There is a photograph under the Post War Politics section (in the wrong place, I would have thought) which purports to show Yagoda behind Beria and Svetlana. It does not look like Yagoda to me. I put a note on the talk page, but so far there has been no response. Regards Clio the Muse 07:24, 18 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Ghirlandajo,
I saw the article you wrote about the Basque witch trials. It is very good! I created Salem Witch Trials Task Force and I think, judging by your previous edits, that we could really use you at our task force, if you want to join!
Thanks,
Psdubow 15:58, 18 July 2007 (UTC) :)[reply]
History of Russia has been nominated for a featured article review. Articles are typically reviewed for two weeks. Please leave your comments and help us to return the article to featured quality. If concerns are not addressed during the review period, articles are moved onto the Featured Article Removal Candidates list for a further period, where editors may declare "Keep" or "Remove" the article from featured status. The instructions for the review process are here. Reviewers' concerns are here. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:09, 18 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Hi. Can I ask you to provide some normal explanation for you claiming about relation of my edit in Basil I article with "Artaxiad and Co".? If civil and logical explanation is not provided, I'm going to claim your edits in this article vandalism and ask admins to act properly. I'm already annoyed with someone's repetitivive reverts and pseudohistory... Armatura 14:27, 21 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Image:Nazi poster.jpg: if you upload it into wikimedia Commons, it may be used in other language wikipedias as well. Is there any reason you didn't do this? Please keep in ind there is a ask force which moves images with good licenses to Commons. My guess would be that they don't have PD-Russia in the drop-down list, but it is valid there and may be added manually. `'Míkka 15:39, 21 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for adding the quotes to Nikolai Przhevalsky. --Amir E. Aharoni 07:39, 22 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Dear Ghirla. It is becoming increasingly apparent that the ArbCom involving us is not going to result in anything constructive. It's not going to condemn or approve the behavior of any involved editors, nor to address any of our evidence or workshop proposals. As it stands, we are both wasting time and nerves pointing fingers posting arguments that I sincerely doubt most ArbCom members have even read recently. Therefore I have three suggestions to consider: 1) we could draft a joint statement demanding that ArbCom addresses all of our concerns 2) we can simply stop posting there about each other and spend time creating content 3) knowing that even ArbCom has failed to change anything, if we have any issues between us that we want to resolve, we could consider using the only framework that has done any good, i.e. Durova's mediation.-- Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk 14:18, 24 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The Ward Churchill pages are all coatracks. Read the editing histories of the editors who are voting to restore the issues article and you will find that there is an extremist attack agenda in play. Albion moonlight 23:03, 25 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Ghirlandajo - an article having a lot of references doesn't mean it's completely cited, thus a template that says "This article or section is missing citations and/or footnotes." is still appropriate. Even if teh article does have 138 citations, by my count it needs 272, meaning almost half of it is uncited.--danielfolsom 14:41, 27 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Hey, just to let you know I posted this on the talk of said Russian page, but I figure you should know.
Ok, after all my edits we've gone from 273 to 78 {{fact}} (combined with {{facts}}) templates, but I've had to add 11 Citations missing templates (combined with Unreferenced). While that seems like a lot - the only sections I added them to were ones that were in dire need of them - this article still has a lot of pov and or in it - and keep in mind it's a long article, and the {{fact}} templates were reduced by almost 200--danielfolsom 20:10, 27 July 2007 (UTC)
You might want to go through and see if you can remove any more - although please don't remove the citations missing templates for said reason, and I did go through pretty thoroughly, but I might have missed a few, and now my eyes are so dead I won't be able to see them :-D. Alrighty, I'll see you around.--danielfolsom 20:13, 27 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
![]() |
On28 July, 2007, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Vasily Maklakov, which you created or substantially expanded. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page. |
--W.marsh 00:22, 28 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Hello, I saw your user name on this image (did you create it?) and thought you might be interested that it's a candidate for delisting from FP status. If you want to weigh in, you can do so (and will probably want to do so soon) here. --Peter 20:20, 28 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
There is an extremely lengthy block quote in Napoleon. It is text from a lecture a nineteenth-century historian about Napoleon's religious beliefs, and you properly removed it. However, it has been placed back verbatim. Please try to help us move it off the article site permanently.--Mcattell 22:41, 28 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Can you glance over the above article, it describes her father Alexander III as "the 19th century social reformer" my very limited knowledge of Rusian history tells me Alexander II was the reformer and Alexander III was more of a represser and authoritarian than reformer - am I have not edited the page because I'm not 100% sure I'm correct. Giano 12:59, 29 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the offer. I will be away for the next few days, so we may have to take advantage of it. Good luck! Paul B 08:18, 30 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Is this a correct word in English? You used this in this edit. The only matches google gives for this word are the Wikipedia article and derivatives. -- Paddu 13:27, 30 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Hi, Ghirla! Regarding this edit: at the very least you need to add a note stating that the entries in italics no longer have town status. It may, however, be better not to include them at all, because it is impossible to devise a guideline as to which former cities/town should be included and which should not be. What criteria are you using? Size? Date of when the town status was taken away? Something else? The problem is that once you start adding "historical towns", people will start adding everything else and the kitchen sink on top. The purpose of the template is to visualize the list of all existing cities/towns in the federal subject; if you want to expand its functionality, you'll need to go beyond just adding a couple of italicized names without explaining why they stand out (and why they are not cities/towns). Please let me know what you think. Thanks.—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); 20:45, 30 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Ghirla, by all means, blank it: I did twice, to be reverted.Proabivouac 12:01, 31 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Ghirla. As a follow up to our discussion about the name Aghvania, please see this quote from Robert H. Hewsen, one of the leading international experts on the topic:
Caucasian Albania (Russian Kavkazkaja Albanija) is the term now conventionally used for classical Albania by both Soviet and Western scholars to distinguish it from the modern Albania in the Balkans with which it has no connection. The French Aghovanie based on Armenian Aluank (Aghouank') is a monstrosity which has fortunately failed to gain currency. The native name for the country is unknown to us.
Hewsen, Robert H., Ethno-History and the Armenian Influence upon the Caucasian Albanians, in: Samuelian, Thomas J. (Hg.), Classical Armenian Culture. Influences and Creativity, Chico: 1982, 27-40.
I thought this might be of interest to you. Take care. Regards, Grandmaster 12:15, 31 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
![]() |
On31 July, 2007, Did you know? was updated with facts from the articles Anatoly Pepelyayev, and Yakut Revolt, which you created or substantially expanded. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page. |
--Yomanganitalk 23:04, 31 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Perhaps you would want to add something to this discussion. I wouldn't want to second-guess your intentions. Thanks.—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); 15:29, 1 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I'd be inclined to say mid 19th century - the terrace setting & architecture thereof, and the Napoleon III beard. Rather Eglington Tournament - oh there's an article we should have. I'm plugging on with Mathis - I find he's not a very summery subject somehow. The Isenheim Altarpiece needs doing in tango as well. Cheers Johnbod 22:31, 2 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the advice. I am done responding or dealing with the arbcom case in any way. Briangotts (Talk) (Contrib) 23:50, 2 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
If you care, this is widespread at no wiki, from which I took the symbols in the first place ([27]).-- Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk 11:23, 3 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I understand that the Sedov is on deposit at Murmansk, but technically still owned by the Russian Ministry of Fisheries - a vital part of the "Putin regime". I'm aware of the fact that the ship is labeled as the largest traditional sailing ship in the world, but that claim is widely disputed (even the claim that the Sedov is "traditional" might be questionable) and a DYK-hook including the size claim would probably not have survived the Wikipedia scrutiny. --Camptown 18:26, 3 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for taking the time to participate at the discussion in my Request for Adminship. Unfortunately the nomination did not succeed, but please rest assured that I am still in full support of the Wikipedia project. I listened carefully to all concerns, and will do my best to incorporate all of the constructive advice that I received, into my future actions on Wikipedia. If you can think of any other ways that I can further improve, please let me know. Best wishes, Elonka 03:41, 5 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
![]() |
Did you know? was updated. On 5 August, 2007, a fact from the article Battle of Lipitsa, which you recently nominated, was 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. |
-- Better late than never, eh? :) GeeJo (t)⁄(c) • 11:52, 5 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
![]() |
Did you know? was updated. On 5 August, 2007, a fact from the article Vasily Kalika, which you recently nominated, was featured in that section on the Main Page. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page. |
--GeeJo (t)⁄(c) • 20:44, 5 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
![]() |
On6 August, 2007, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Gennady (Archbishop of Novgorod), which you created or substantially expanded. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page. |
--Another good catch :) GeeJo (t)⁄(c) • 21:04, 6 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
![]() |
Did you know? was updated. On 7 August, 2007, a fact from the article Pyotr Voykov, which you recently nominated, was 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. |
--Circeus 03:25, 7 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
![]() |
OnAugust 9, 2007, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Konstantin Posyet, which you created or substantially expanded. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page. |
Thanks again Ghirla!Blnguyen (bananabucket) 05:05, 9 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Category:Cossack Wikipedians. How do you like this edit here. [28] ?--Kuban Cossack 16:38, 8 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
There you go. If you could, it'd be really nice if we could validate that Mrolston is the same editor. Sorry for the trouble. ~Kylu (u|t) 01:41, 12 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
![]() |
On13 August, 2007, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Vokrug sveta, which you created or substantially expanded. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page. |
--DarkFalls talk 08:11, 13 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
![]() |
Did you know? was updated. On 13 August, 2007, a fact from the article Moscow Orphanage, which you recently nominated, was 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. |
Note that you got the picture spot this time. :) --howcheng {chat} 17:13, 13 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Ghirla, I don't know if you're interested in constructivism and early C20 architecture but Vkhutemas is up for FAC and suffering a little from inattention. A friend of mine wrote in, put it on FAC, and then promptly disappeared on holiday, having asked me to deal with any queries! I'm trying to drum up some interest, would you care to comment? --Joopercoopers 09:22, 14 August 2007 (UTC) (mcginnly)[reply]
![]() |
On15 August, 2007, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Shanghai Russians, which you created or substantially expanded. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page. |
--Allen3 talk 12:27, 15 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Ghirlandajo. I don't know if you are aware, but there has been a Wikiquette alert placed concerned your edits at Kievan Rus'. The alert is Wikipedia:Wikiquette_alerts#User:Ghirlandajo.
I have been looking at the history of that page, and am finding it very hard to sort out what has been happening. It looks a little bit like there is an issue with some people pushing a rather modern nationalistic WP:POV. Part of the problem is that major changes are being made without anyone actually talking about it on the discussion page. There are, for example, the attempts to use a Ukrainian spelling of "Kyivan", and some massive reverts you have applied without it being clear which version is being restored.
I'm just letting you know. You may like to make a statement at the alert, or give some background on the discussion page to explain what you are doing on the page. On June 22 you reverted about six months of edits, for example. That's pretty dramatic! It may well have cleared the air a bit after a series of edit wars, but a move like that needs some explanation. There's also the fight over an infobox, and I really don't get the problem there at all. There were issues with playing fun and games with the coat of arms being used, I guess. Thanks for any help in clearing up the matter. —Duae Quartunciae (talk · cont) 04:55, 16 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Well, no offense, Duae, but I think this demonstrates why this board does more harm than good. IMHO, it should follow WP:PAIN and WP:RFI into oblivion. My opinion is rather informed here, since I am personally largely responsible for nuking RFI. This project already has too many boards that are used in place for the Wikipedia:Request to block of some sort allowing abusive users to game the system by using the cluelessness of certainly well-meaning but gullible folks who try to sort this out. --Irpen
The last time I posted this, it did not post for some reason, so I am trying again. I wanted to know why you are removing the infobox from Igor Moiseyev. I admit that the flag icon may be wrong, but that is no reason to delete the entire infobox. Can you please explain this? Canadian Paul 01:17, 17 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Very interesting comments on your user page about mainspace editing and administrator space. Polounit 09:04, 17 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Someone has said that WikiScanner adds another level of transparency to Wikipedia: I can't see that this is less than true. Isn't WikiScanner a Wikipedia tool, not a hostile device? Every Talkpage is a suitable place for our reports on spin attempts, with identifying diffs. In some cases the spin attempt becomes part of the story in the mainspace article itself, doesn't it? --Wetman 13:29, 17 August 2007 (UTC).[reply]
Only the blessed can pronounce it, and they will know only by revelation. Seriously though, the name is based on the Deacon of PndapetziminUmberto Eco's Baudolino. It's an exotic city in the east, so Eco being a "semioticist" it naturally has to have an exotic spelling and be hard to pronounce. I just say Pnadapetzim, but it's not like I have much need to say it. It does its job of stopping my name being found on google so easily. All the best. Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 12:37, 17 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Nice for you to complain about one of my admin decisions at ANI without telling me or engaging me on the decision first. Spartaz Humbug! 13:07, 17 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I am not familiar with this place but I will look at my sources and see if there's anything. I vaguely recall that Kevin Brook may have written something about this site. Briangotts (Talk) (Contrib) 04:30, 19 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, I thought that the citation request was self-explanatory. Since it obviously was not, I added a clarification at Talk:Abrau-Dyurso. Thanks!—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); 17:42, 19 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above case is closed. A general amnesty for editors involved in Eastern Europe-related articles is extended, with the expectation that further editing will adhere to Wikipedia's policies. Future behavior problems may be addressed by the Arbitration Committee on the motion of any Arbitrator or upon acceptance of a request for inquiry by any user who edits in this area. For the Arbitration Committee, Picaroon (t) 19:10, 19 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I put the second one up for DYK. DurovaCharge! 05:40, 20 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Hi! Sorry for the late response. Yes, it would be good to have the article on Moscow festival. But I've just returned from Sevastopol with a sea of impressions and my upcoming edits will be mostly related to it, for example, to two Heroic Defences of the city. Cmapm 16:49, 22 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
![]() |
The Tireless Contributor Barnstar | |
As one of the top four contributors to Template talk:Did you know among the 2,229 unique editors to that page, you deserve this barnstar. Thank you! Jreferee (Talk) 04:50, 23 August 2007 (UTC)[reply] |
![]() |
OnAugust 23, 2007, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Arkhyz, which you created or substantially expanded. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page. |
--ragesoss 16:31, 23 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
![]() |
On23 August, 2007, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Vladimirka, which you created or substantially expanded. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page. |
--Peta 23:30, 23 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Phrase of the day: Ghirlandajo takes the bisquit for nationalist fringecruft. Bishonen | talk 13:26, 24 August 2007 (UTC).[reply]
![]() |
You are being recruited by the Salem Witch Trials Task Force, a collaborative project committed to improving Wikipedia's coverage of the Salem Witch Trials. Join us! |
Psdubow 16:05, 24 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
![]() |
On24 August, 2007, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Alania, which you created or substantially expanded. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page. |
Laïka 19:37, 24 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
![]() |
On25 August, 2007, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Sava Vladislavich, which you created or substantially expanded. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page. |
--Carabinieri 03:20, 25 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
![]() |
Did you know? was updated. On August 27, 2007, a fact from the article Falklands Crisis (1770), which you recently nominated, was featured in that section on the Main Page. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page. |
thanks again Ghirla.Blnguyen (bananabucket) 08:32, 27 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Andrey, I am up to my 3RR at Geats. You pointed me there, and I thought I had limited myself to only the smallest of corrections, but User:Berig is defending core territory as a lion. Can you give a hand? /Pieter Kuiper 19:59, 25 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Andrey, thank you for your kind note. It helps a lot to log in and find messages like yours. Best, SlimVirgin (talk)(contribs) 01:13, 26 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Thought you might like to know, I've used a couple of your nominations at DYK (Orator Hunt and Falklands Crisis (1770)) for the September update of the United Kingdom portal. Thanks for them! the wub "?!" 21:05, 26 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
This article is about to go up on the main page as a featured DYK, but was the "Memelburg" ever called "Klaipėda Castle", even in modern Lithuanian guide books? --Camptown 12:37, 27 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
![]() |
Did you know? was updated. On 28 August, 2007, a fact from the article Klaipėda Castle, which you recently nominated, was 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. |
--Andrew c [talk] 20:34, 28 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
![]() |
Did you know? was updated. On August 29, 2007, a fact from the article Jane McManus Storm Cazneau, which you recently nominated, was 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 Ghirla. Blnguyen (bananabucket) 02:47, 29 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Hi! I see you've added the Category:LGBT people from Russia back to Vera Gedroitz. A couple comments:
It would be great if you could provide a reference in English, or possibly a translation of the relevant text from one of the Russian references. I did a search for web pages that might reference Gedroitz' sexuality and came up empty. Your help is appreciated! -- SatyrTN (talk | contribs) 17:28, 27 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I never dreamed I'd see the day :) Will make one specifically for you :) Best,—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); 15:50, 28 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Here is another example of the spread of Template:Infobox Former Country - at Saxony (disambiguation)! Is this plain idiocy or is this somehow politically motivated? -- Petri Krohn 01:39, 29 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Hello,
An Arbitration case in which you commented has been opened: Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/DreamGuy 2. Please add any evidence you may wish the Arbitrators to consider to the evidence sub-page, Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/DreamGuy 2/Evidence. You may also contribute to the case on the workshop sub-page, Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/DreamGuy 2/Workshop.
On behalf of the Arbitration Committee, David Mestel(Talk) 20:18, 29 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Did you also notice how this article has deteriorated in the last couple of months...? :( Camptown 20:43, 29 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for your message. I understand that some people objected to raising an ANI thread on the issue. I've made my position on the matter clear in my last post. We'll just have to agree to disagree on what constitutes "misuse" of ANI. Eliz81(talk)(contribs) 15:44, 30 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Normally, people get warnings when violating 3RR, but since move-wars are probably the most annoying wars to clean up, you aren't getting that courtesy.
In the future, also, please do not completely retask an active page without clear consensus. You are being blocked for 24 hours. --Golbez 21:19, 12 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Ghirlandajo (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))
Request reason:
This is absolutely outrageous. I am told the block was prompted on IRC to prevent me from commenting on WP:ANI. "Reverts ##1-2" and "Reverts ##2-3" have nothing in common and are different by nature. --Ghirla-трёп- 21:26, 12 September 2007 (UTC)
Decline reason:
Please reread WP:3RR. Reverts do not need to be to the same content. — Yamla 21:28, 12 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.
How by who and why was that "noted" over IRC while ANI is right there? --Irpen 21:48, 12 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Golbez, you should know better than act on snitches' prompting. "Someone" "noted" something over IRC while there are 3RR and ANI boards because that someone knew that "noting" something behind user's back when the user can't see and respond may be more effective. --Irpen 21:57, 12 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Wrong, Swatjester. It does matter that there was a snitch prompting. And, second, there is no clear violation either. Diff 3 is not a revert in any way. --Irpen 22:05, 12 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I came into this blind. I saw four reverts and acted appropriately. Considering 1) You're obviously a good editor, considering the awards and laudations higher on this talk page, 2) I misread your previous block list (though that doesn't excuse you), 3) There was no warning, 4) The article itself is move-protected, and 5) the block occurred after the protection, I'm cutting the block to 90 minutes.
I hate my conscience, sometimes. --Golbez 22:50, 12 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
However, keep in mind that this is not an invitation to resume your disruptive editing tactics, which you have not yet expressed apology or remorse for; I would greatly appreciate a statement from you to that effect. And keep in mind that the four reverts from earlier today still count for the next 20 hours or so. --Golbez 23:25, 12 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Hi - right here. - KrakatoaKatie 00:07, 13 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not sure what about my "conduct" has made you lose confidence in my admin abilities, especially since I'm not involved at all in this except as an outside observer. I believe you violated 3RR, and I believe that it is very clear. It has no reflection on you, or anything beyond that. I believe Irpen has a personal issue against anyone who uses IRC that is an admin, and that he's taking it too far right now. So I'm not really sure what it is that I've said that's made you "lose confidence" in me. If there's something you think that might convince me that I'm wrong, I'm all ears. ⇒ SWATJester Denny Crane. 00:35, 13 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Aha! I've just learned from your user page that you're Russian. That explains your concern about the Allied occupation of Europe and Soviet occupation of Europe articles.
I have only become aware of this issue today via the discussion on WP:ANI. There seems to have been a strong sentiment on Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Allied occupation of Europe that Allied occupation of Europe should not redirect to Soviet occupation of Europe. I more or less agree with that sentiment but with perhaps a different perspective.
Let me present my opinion to you and, if you agree with me, let's see how this affects your concerns.
IMO, there never was an Allied occupation of (all of) Europe. Most countries occupied by the Nazis were liberated with perhaps a short occupation (measured in terms of a few years) of some "liberated" countries and some Axis powers (Germany, Austria, Italy). I don't have exact dates at my finger tips but I think the last country to be occupied was Germany which regained full sovereignty in 1956.
The U.S. occupied Japan for a few years. The four Allied powers occupied Germany until 1956. (My knowledge here is sketchy so forgive any errors in dates.)
Thus, I think it is wrong to have an article titled Soviet occupation of Europe. The Soviets did not occupy all of Europe and, legally at least, they did not occupy Eastern Europe as long as the Soviet occupation of Europe seems to imply. I have not read the entire article but I did get far enough to notice that there is an article entitled Soviet occupation of Czechoslovakia which asserts that the Soviets "occupied" Czechoslovakia until 1989.
Now, let's be honest about things. The Soviet Union exerted very tight control over the Warsaw Pact countries even to the point of military incursions into Hungary in 1956 and Czechoslovakia in 1968.
Nonetheless, the official and legal relationship between the Soviet Union and the Warsaw Pact was not one of occupation but of allies with the Soviet Union being the dominant ally.
Now, I would not argue that the U.S. and the Soviet Union were morally equivalent during the Cold War. However, we can see that the U.S. did not "occupy" Haiti, the Dominican Republic, South Korea or South Vietnam in the sense that it is alleged that the Soviet Union "occupied" Eastern Europe despite the fact that the U.S. intervened militarily in those countries and exerted strong influence on their governments.
It is true that it is a favorite phrase of American conservatives to style the Soviet relationship to the Warsaw pact countries as "occupation of Eastern Europe". I myself think of it this way. However, this is highly POV and is not encyclopedic. It's OK to mention that American conservatives think this way but it is wrong to assert it as if it is the only perspective on the truth.
Since I am new to this discussion, I have no idea of which articles need to be changed and where to start building consensus for the change. If you agree with what I have written above, tell me what articles need to be changed and where the discussion should be continued.
If you disagree with what I have written, please tell me what you disagree with and let's see if we can find common ground to move forward.
--Richard 00:39, 13 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Richard, your view that an article is NPOV in the sense of "taking a truly neutral POV stance" seems to go beyond WP:NPOV, which is simply to present all POVs according to weight. Martintg 05:18, 13 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Asking ourselves rhetorical questions whether there were substative differences between Czech and other cases, or comparing it with the coalition presence in Iraq is engaging in WP:OR, unless you can point to sources that ask these questions or make these comparisons in those terms. Martintg 05:18, 13 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
"Soviet Occupation" is more widely used in academic sources than "Soviet hegemony", with "Soviet Occupation" getting 5240 hits[34], while "Soviet hegemony" only gets 930 hits [35]. It is not for us to judge if a term is inheritly POV, if that term is widely used in scholarly sources. Martintg 05:18, 13 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
![]() |
The Working Man's Barnstar | |
I only just today looked at all your article starts and contributions...fine work! MONGO 05:18, 13 September 2007 (UTC)[reply] |
Please tone down the broad sweeping accusations, uncivil comments and generally be more polite & civil in discussions. You are well-aware of what is and is not acceptable language and behaviour. Vassyana 07:29, 13 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Concerning this edit, I feel obliged to remind you a relevant passage from WP:REVERT:
“ | Reverting a good-faith edit may send the message that "I think your edit was no better than vandalism and doesn't deserve even the courtesy of an explanation". It is a slap in the face to a good-faith editor. | ” |
Please think twice about who is being uncivil here. --Ghirla-трёп- 07:44, 13 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Vassyanya, there is nothing to "address in those diffs". You horribly mischaracterize them. I read the whole discussion as it appeared and clicked again at your diffs. You claim that the first two are "inaccurate and inflammatory accusations" while the third one is an "inappropriate comment" about an editor. What I see as inappropriate here was an incident itself. The incident was pretty disgusting and the sweeping criticism was highly warranted. Your coming here with lecturing established and respected users may also be called inflammatory (and I believe it is). I do think, though, that you also consider your comments and their tone warranted. Even if Ghirla is mistaken, while I don't think he is, his comments are not disruptive. Your "please tone down" lecturing message is unwarranted and unhelpful. Please adjust your tone and your attitude. --Irpen 08:32, 13 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
FYI, Maxim was formerly known as User:Evilclown93. You can check the user rename log here. His RFA was successful on 30 June of this year. I hope this helps. Cheers, ➪HiDrNick! 08:55, 13 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Ghirlandajo,
In regards to the below comments:
I agree with your point about categorization, but I won't take for granted everything that some "gerontology research group" says.
1. All cultures have age exaggerators.
Did you notice the USA has age exaggerators as well as cases that can't be solved? Check out Alberta Davis and Oberia Coffin. Were they really 125 and 122 years old? We don't know, but they couldn't prove their age, so they weren't accepted.
2. Age inflation is tamed with accurate systems of record-keeping. Sweden, before it instituted compulsory birth registration in 1749, had age claims up to '147' years old. But since then, no one in Sweden has lived past 112. Did they change 'ethnically' or did they eliminate lies, myths, and exaggerations by replacing religious, nationalistic, and familial myths with a secular, scientific approach? Likewise, the U.K. before 1837 had notable claims such as Thomas Parr, 152 and some even to age 207. But since the compulsory birth registration system began, no one in the UK has surpassed 115.
Now, I must ask: does Russia have a complete record system, even today, in 2007? That is, is the birth of every child put on file? If so, what about in 1890?
I feel that the groups based in the West have been reluctant to "investigate" the claims coming from, say, Russia or China.
We need to see who finances them and then make appropriate conclusions.
According to official Russian statistics, Smetannikova is the oldest Russian alive. If you follow the links, you will see that there are 19th-century church records that seem to verify her age. Until today, our page listed some pre-1917 expatriate as Russia's "national longevity recordhorder", at age 110, simply because a Western-based group has more trust in a paper issued in 1913 in America than in documents kept in a remote Siberian village and endorsed by the Russian government.
This smacks of racism to me.
Let me put in another analogy: would you LOAN MONEY to someone with a long track record of not repaying it? Of course not. So when a nation like Russia has a long track record of putting forth false claims for reasons of nationalism, propaganda, etc., then it should be expected that Russian records would be viewed with suspicion.
In fact, there are several reasonably well-known people in Russia who approach the supercentenarian age. For instance, Boris Efimov, who turned 107 last month and was shown on the Russian TV recalling his student days in Petrograd during the February Revolution. --Ghirla-трёп- 09:01, 9 October 2007 (UTC)
Age '107' is still far from 110. Statistics show that only about 12% of people that reach their 107th birthday will reach age 110. And of 1,100 validated persons who reached age 110, less than 2% (about 23) have reached age 115. So when someone comes out of nowhere and claims '117', we cannot simply accept that as fact without a substantial effort to prove the case.
Now, that leaves us with a few options:
A. We can cooperate. You can build a track record by sending documents for cases such as Maria Strelnikova and Russian data can be merged into the international database, much the way Russia wants to join the WTO.
B. Or, we don't want to think about option B, do we? Insisting on international acceptance of substandard, unscientifically validated data is like insisting that we don't test for drugs at the Olympics. It simply isn't going to happen.
You may wish to check out my own personal page at
Robert Young (longevity claims researcher).
I am the world's leading expert. It be beneficial for everyone to decide to choose science, not nationalism, when it comes to the dissemination of information that will educate the next generation. In this increasingly interconnected world, borders and barriers may lessen (through the internet) but globalization introduces the problem of raised expectations. Perhaps you don't realize how 'new' this field is. Age investigation of extreme longevity from a scientific perspective only started in the 1870's. As such, we are still relative pioneers. The lack of Russian or Chinese data cannot be ascribed to 'biases' but more to the factors of politics, education, war, the destruction of records, and the lack of recordkeeping. I do not expect we can 'change the world' overnight. The British started their '100% registration' in 1837 and their records reached a standard of data completeness (99% valid or more) only a century later. Studies from Denmark and elsewhere show that a CENTURY of stable recordkeeping is needed before a system becomes reliable. The USA didn't institute 'compulsory birth registration' until 1933. Thus, U.S. cases are accepted only on an individual basis. We don't accept as valid the claim that Pearl Gartrell is '119', or that LaJean Smith is '118'. Yet these two would be older than Semmnikova, at '117.' So, are we giving the title to someone simply for being an American? Or are we giving the title to the oldest person whose age can be documented, according to standards set before the person attained the title?For example, you will find that Edna Parker had applied for the GRG/world's oldest waiting list in 2005, more than two years before she got it, and at a point when the chances of her getting to be #1 seemed small (she had to survive when a lot of others passed away).
Note that, in particular, cases such as Sarhat Rashidova seem disturbing...this appears to be a 'media hoax' all traced to the same source.
So, can we prove that Semmnikova, Strelnikova, or others in Russia really are the age claimed an not another hoax? Do we have a dataset of every claim in Russia, and a way to investigate each case individually? Even in the U.S., a recent study showed that only 13% of U.S. claims to age 110+ from the period 1980-1999 could be proven true. That means we threw out about 2,400 cases and kept 341. That doesn't look like 'nationalism' to me. It looks like trying to create a scientific model that will allow us to ascertain what the human life span really is, not what some religious, nationalistic, or familial myth insists it is.
If you'd like to work with the GRG on Russian cases, please e-mail me at robertdouglasyoung@yahoo.com and we can discuss this issue further, privately.
Sincerely, Robert Young Guinness World Records/Gerontology Research Group/Supercentenarian Research Foundation/New England Centenarian Study/Max Planck Institute for Demographic Research/Georgia State University/Boston University/Social Security Administration Ryoung122 04:40, 10 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]