User talk:Kuban kazak/2006 3

(B) K/Ch (Uprising)

As this may be a controversial issue, I have started a discussion at Talk:Khmelnytskyi_Uprising#Name_-_move_proposed.--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus ^Talk 16:33, 3 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Edit war

You and Elk Salmon appear to have a major edit war. Georgia guy 16:46, 3 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Medal

Тут у меня дырка в голове и вспомнить никак не могу: Как называлась та медаль котороя выдавалась всем участникам войны? Ну знаешь, которую справа вверху носили, на подвеске (именно подвеске, а не колодке) и с чуваком на ней... Спасибки... user:Grafikm fr

"Za Pobedu nad Germaniey"? --Irpen 22:18, 4 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Moscow Metro

Done. Please let me know when you are in agreement so the article can be unprotected.—Ëzhiki (ërinacëus amurënsis) • (yo?); 00:49, 10 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Redirs

As long as there are no objections, it is no problem. Just list redirs that need fixing on my talk page, and I'll take care of them tomorrow.—Ëzhiki (ërinacëus amurënsis) • (yo?); 15:44, 11 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Infoboxes

don't be ridiculous, the point of an infobox isn't to introduce new material into the article, it's to present quick facts from the text in an easy-to-view manner. See for example BART. No one seems to have a problem with the infobox there, even though a lot of its info is in the article itself. Also look at Vaquita. Quit whining! As for the line itself, having the line map on the LEFT is UGLY regardless of the infobox, if you don't believe me, I can give you a screenshot. I wish there was a WP policy saying when it's ok to use infoboxes, alas no. lensovet 16:51, 11 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Presentely the infobox you put in is DULL and incorrect.:

1. E type trains have been retired
2. The rest of the rolling stock are simply modifications of that train that have been redesigned interiorally and have long names, it is alright to put that in the heading but to have that in an infobox is extreamely misleading
3. Why have length in miles?
4. Anybody can see the colour from the template, they are not blind (colourblind) and this is not wikitravel.
5. That leaves a pointless infobox which has to go, as you say there is no rule on keeping them. --Kuban Cossack 09:53, 15 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

First of all - i have absolutely agree with Lensovet. Infoboxes are for quick providing of facts without scrolling and reading of article. Those are should be.

1. E type still in use and it doesn't matter if other are modifications. This is quick list with train types. It is much faster to check infobox then reading all history in rolling stock section.

2. Mile is very popular measure of distance among english speaking countries, and not only.

3. Color is just header for infobox and making it just a bit more pleasure for an eye.

Elk Salmon 16:45, 15 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

1. Not on APL, last were retired in 2004. Only FL continues to use E type but these will go in 2007, when APL takes over its end and the Rusich trains take over its main stock.
2. Where? Whole of Europe uses metric units, whole of Asia uses metric units, even South America does. And certainly MOSCOW knows of no imeperial units. What's next? Versts?...
3. That is useless. --Kuban Cossack 14:49, 16 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

first off, the specific content of the infobox can be changed; that is not the issue here. what is the issue is the layout of the article. in addition, this map (as are all the other maps on the other lines) does NOT work. Please take a look at some lines in other parts of the world, such as LACMTA_Gold_Line, Dublin/Pleasanton_-_SFO/Millbrae_Line. If you notice, the lines themselves have no maps - they have lists and/or tables. This makes more sense. Then, when you go to a station, such as Dublin/Pleasanton, you get a box at the bottom of the page that shows you the next and previous stations. Click through them. You'll notice that at transfer stations, this box will have all the lines that stop at it listed, allowing the viewer to see easily that the station is a transfer point. Re: miles, it should have both miles and km. That's a simple conversion and is in no way a valid rationale for removing the infobox. lensovet 21:09, 15 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Lensovet, why do we have to follow other examples and not make our own? Moscow Metro is unquestionably the most beutiful system in the world. So why do we have to adopt Dublin's template, when we should set the example. Finally in Dublin you can't immediately get through to the station a few stops away directely from the station article you are on. Remember in west Metro is but a transport system, in my country it is a gateway to the city.

The template that you refer to is meant to be a guide for easily selecting the station articles and not as a geographical map (which can also indeed be useful, but presentely none is drawn). Currentely there is not too much text needed to explain the history (for which table is alright, as for name changes). Transfer table can go, but I would keep it, as it is quite useful in navigation. The only other one is future extensions. That is indeed useful and should be enchanced with images. However I do not share your view on problems with the template of the line. Sorry but you'll have to do better to argue your point through. --Kuban Cossack 14:49, 16 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for proving my own point - The template that you reffer to is meant to be a guide for easy seleceting the station articles and not as a geographical map - and that's why it doesn't need to have the form of a line - it can be a table. That's all I'm saying. then this new table will incorporate info from the transfers table, and instead of having some weird thing going down the left side (can you explain why? This gets in the way of the table of contents and doesn't do much else) and a separate table for transfers, we have one easy-to-use regular table. Care to argue your point? Also, thank you very much for changing the topic. I never brought up any tables in the article - only the line template. lensovet 17:53, 16 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

However visually it is MUCH more pleasent than just a list, moreover it shows closed sections, branches, extensions and of course transfers to other lines. The plan is similar to what you get inside trains of that line. Now going down left hand side is simply a nice layout. If it gets in the way change your browser font settings. (actually give me a screenshot of what you see and paste it here [1]). Now for transfers, there is a catch. Most of the stations are done in different articles (with exception of cross platfrom ones). Look at the size of Biblioteka Imeni Lenina, Aleksandrovskiy Sad, Arbatskaya (Arbatsko-Pokrovskaya) and add on to the text Borovitskaya, now imagine merging them into one article. -- :(. Finally the present layout was adopted by ru-wiki and other wikis as well, so en-wiki is by far not the first to have them. I think there is a reason of convinience involved in such a pattern. --Kuban Cossack 22:25, 16 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

There's no need for a merge - just list the stations as transfers. Also you can include closed sections, branches, extensions and of course transfers to other lines in a table. My point is that this layout does not work and font sizes have nothing to do with it. My screen resolution is 1280x854, which is wider than the majority of the world. Yes, it is a little prettier. But the overall layout is ugly as hell, and we can do this way more elegantly with just one table instead of three tables and a long map.lensovet 23:45, 16 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Exactly we agree that presentely the versions look prettier. So what is the issue here, Ok, we can cut on the tables, although IMO there is nothing wrong with them. As before I fail to see any valid points, and as for elegancy, sorry but I fail to pick up on that. --Kuban Cossack 09:42, 17 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Also congrats on dissing the west when there is absolutely no need or reason to do so.

Sorry now its your time to explain your english. --Kuban Cossack 22:25, 16 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I present to you a definition and semantic relations

OK, and in what ways do you see me follow that definition, that is what I am asking. --Kuban Cossack 09:42, 17 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Belarusian xlit

Modified how? Or was that just a copy-paste from Russian? Just making sure...—Ëzhiki (ërinacëus amurënsis) • (yo?); 14:17, 12 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Notice of arbitration

An arbitration request involving you has been filed.--AndriyK 19:55, 13 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Civility

Please note that your cooments like [this] or [this] are in variance with WP:Civility.--Mbuk 21:20, 19 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I agree but as is endless revert warring and tag reinsertion of settled disputes. --Kuban Cossack 11:03, 20 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I moved your message from the talk of Russian architecture to the user talk of AndriyK. The´article talk pages are reserved to discuss the articles. Personal discussions should be restricted to the user talk pages. Keep the article talk pages free from personal accusations.--Mbuk 21:09, 20 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Kiev metro: suggestions

I think the entire issue (both about how to code the template and the layout problems) could be solve by going an alternate route.

Most templates listing train stations use a footer format (see for example {{MTL Metro Green}} of the Montreal Metro, {{MBTA}} of the MBTA,or the succesion box used for London Underground stations). Moving the template to the bottom of the page frees nearly 300x wide of screenspace and makes the image size/placement issue at Vyrlytsia (Kiev Metro) (which you'llfind explained on its respective talk page) moot. What do you say? Circeus 17:14, 22 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think so, presentely I like the layout much more than the footer, it looks nice when viewed with standarard equipment. --Kuban Cossack 18:05, 22 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

makes the image size/placement issue at Vyrlytsia (Kiev Metro) moot – no, he has his ideas about how rapid transit articles should be done, and he's made it his duty, apparently, to make sure that his way is the only way. for now i'm just glad that he's restricted himself to CIS systems. :) lensovet 02:21, 23 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Please avoid WP:NPA on my talk page, if you have a phobia against me, file a mediation/RfC or even an arbitration if you want to. Finally I am not saying my way is perfect but presentely I do not see advantages of the alternatives that have been presented as of yet. --Kuban Cossack 20:36, 25 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

please look up the meaning of the word phobia, if i had a phobia of you i wouldn't be commenting on your talk page. my point is that no amount of evidence presented will ever be enough for you to see any advantages of any alternatives. end of story. lensovet 22:27, 29 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, but if there were STRONG advantages in an alternative I would have considered, so far the alternative is NOT convincing. --Kuban Cossack 23:20, 30 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, there!

I would like to ask you that if you may bring a convenient and "indecent" translation for the letter. Ciao! --Behemoth 17:59, 23 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I will, do not promise immediate action, but I shall. --Kuban Cossack 20:36, 25 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Important

Please vote: Wikipedia:Templates for deletion/Log/2006 June 28#Template:POV-tag --Ghirla ^-трёп- 18:34, 28 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

TfD

You're a good user. I believe you've had problems with some of the same disruptive editors as I've encountered. On that note, I think you should reconsider your keep vote here. [2] I'm convinced the "POV because" tag will empower disruptive editors. 172 | Talk 17:24, 1 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

What is to reconsider, I made it rather clear, only the admin/mediator can insert this tag (most likely after he/she locks the article). Otherwise insertion of such a tag should be prohibited, if such a rationale is not provided then delete. --Kuban Cossack 09:41, 2 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

NPA

Kuban, you have all the rights in the world to remove unwanted messages from your talk page (unless they are good faith official warnings), but please avoid edit summaries that can be seen as personal attacks. abakharev 10:36, 3 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Mediation

A request for mediation has been filed with the Mediation Committee that lists you as a party. The Mediation Committee requires that all parties listed in a mediation must be notified of the mediation. Please review the request at [[Wikipedia:Requests for mediation/Battle of the Lower Dnieper/Lviv]], and indicate whether you agree or refuse to mediate. If you are unfamiliar with mediation, please refer to Wikipedia:Mediation. There are only seven days for everyone to agree, so please check as soon as possible.

Edit warring

It seems to me that you are acting in an uncivil manner. Please remain civil and don't resort to making personal attacks or instigate edit wars. I have noticed you reverting a lot of AndriyK's edits lately and being very contentious towards him. It may be time for you to re-read Wikipedia:Civility, Wikipedia:No personal attacks, and Wikipedia:Assume good faith. Your reverting is fueling this dispute. Please, stop. Work out your differences on the talk pages. If I see you escalating the dispute further, you may be blocked. Mangojuice^talk 20:49, 5 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

My reasoning is explained at User talk:AndriyK, I will nevertheless promise to try to remain civil in the process and apologise for the disruption caused already. --Kuban Cossack 10:06, 6 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I just wanted to chime in and second Mangojuice's concerns. Edit warring is never ever acceptable, and harms your cause and inflames the conflict, not the other way around, so you should pursue dispute resolution instead. I am pleased by your conciliatory response though. :-) Dmcdevit·t 08:14, 7 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Grozny

I know you are very busy on other things, but could you take some time to explain a few points? First: congratulations on the expansion of this article. I do have a problem with "Second Chechen War", particularly the second paragraph. I am thinking of editing it (one non-encyclopaedic passage, grammatical errors), but first I would like to know what you think about it:

a) what is the argument on this evacuation about? I do not know from the text whether it was a military ruse (=the separatists were only told unofficially) or an official offer. There is a claim (I seem to remember that it is or was being debated at the European High Court in Strasbourg) that it was an official offer, and that the Russian Army misused it to kill as many separatists as possible, killing also some civilians in the process. (Interestingly, evacuation proposals like this in normal warfare usually only concern unarmed civilians, excluding combatants, I think.) Your text, to most people who know about the controversy, seems to suggest that the Chechen diaspora version is correct. I do not really think you meant that, but ... If it is a deliberate attempt to avoid the issue and keep the passage NPOV, it fails, according to me.

b) what is meant by this passage "the path between the city and the open the village of Alkhan-Kala"? Do you mean "the open village of Alkhan-Kala"?

Side note: you write that the Russian flag was raised on February 6 in the centre. Since in the article on Kakiev I mentioned that he claims his group did that, I would like to know whether your source says more. If it turns out Kakiev is right, we could put that as the 2000 event for February 6: a Muslim force doing that - seems noteworthy, and there is no event mentioned for 2000 yet.

Hope you understand that this is not meant against your work. I want to help.--Pan Gerwazy 22:09, 5 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Прапанова аб Вікі ў правапісе 1959

Чалом! Азнаёмцеся з прапановай: http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Requests_for_new_languages. Дзяк.

Kuban_Cossack, please, VOTE FOR THE OFFICIAL BEL-WIKI! We WANT to write in OUR native language, not "their" "western variant"... BooXteR

Regarding Elk Salmon

If you do decide to enter dispute resolution with Elk Salmon, you may want to skip directly to the Request for Comment. I opened a mediation case on July 5 (which is theoretically not against him, but rather between him and I), but he has yet to respond. Perhaps this incident on the Moscow Metro page along with the situation at the mediation cabal case can be used to support a request for comment under Wikipedia:Blocking policy#Users who exhaust the community's patience. I'll see how he responds to the changes I am about to make to the Moscow article (which is in accordance with the mediation cabal case discussion). If we see a continued refusal to negotiate on that article as well as a continued refusal to negotiate on the Moscow Metro article, a request for comment will be necessary. joturner 13:13, 12 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Request for Mediation for Moscow Metro

A request for mediation has been filed with the Mediation Committee that lists you as a party. The Mediation Committee requires that all parties listed in a mediation must be notified of the mediation. Please review the request at Wikipedia:Requests for mediation/Moscow Metro, and indicate whether you agree or refuse to mediate. If you are unfamiliar with mediation, please refer to Wikipedia:Mediation. There are only seven days for everyone to agree, so please check as soon as possible.-- joturner 05:24, 15 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Georgy Zhukov Mediation

• Hi, I am mediating the Georgy Zhukov dispute and welcome your comments on the mediation page. BrownHornet21 01:14, 21 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Re: Comment on Elk Salmon's talk page

Знаешь Элк тут я полностью согласен, ну нельзя так за яйца кота тянуть. Самое главное, что от этого ты выиграешь? Время? Look at it this way if you do not participate, the mediation will continue without you. And we will make our most to take your opinion, but as your absense will not allow you to defend it. Once we arrive at a consensus there, пиши пропало, since your table will be taken down, and then your reverts will be treated as vandalism with appropriate sanctions taken against you. IMHO, you have quite a bit more to gain out of the mediation, as in some cases these are your last chances to somehow incorporate your opinion on the matter. Подумал бы своей упрямой головой. --Kuban Cossack 08:31, 20 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, if Elk Salmon fails to accept the request for mediation by 05:32 (UTC) on 22 July, it will be rejected. So, it won't actually continue without him. The same goes with Georgia guy. They are unlikely to accept by that time, so we can expect more discussion on the talk page, unless we can agree to just give up and let this go (although it would be quite frustrating if consensus is just allowed to be trumped in this instance). Alternatively, someone may add table 2 to the article, yet again, and continue through the dispute resolution steps if issues arise again. -- tariqabjotu (joturner) 05:05, 22 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I think that the time has matured into an RfC. Elk clearely has no intention of any compromise or communication. Stubborn people are treated accordingly. --Kuban Cossack 13:17, 23 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Allow me

I, abakharev, hereby award you this barnstar for your fine articles on Metros all around the former Soviet Union. Keep it up!

Troll alert

Hello, please check contributions by this disruptive editor and one of his socks. --Ghirla ^-трёп- 09:27, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Will get to it--Kuban Cossack 09:35, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hero Cities

Hi! I left this unchanged, but what event are you talking about? Did they change the name as it was engraved, or was it something else? Just curious. Thanks.—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); 17:35, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Spot on. Putin ordered that a few years ago.

Invitation to join Wikipedia:WikiProject Eastern Orthodoxy

Hi there! I've noticed that you've edited articles pertaining to the Eastern Orthodox Church. I wanted to extend an invitation to you to join the WikiProject dedicated to organizing and improving articles on the subject, which can be found at: WikiProject Eastern Orthodoxy. This WikiProject was begun because a need was perceived to raise the level of quality of articles on Wikipedia which deal with the Eastern Orthodox Church.

You can find information on the project page about the WikiProject, as well as how to join and how to indicate that you are a member of the project. Additionally, you may be interested in helping out with our collaboration of the month. I hope you'll consider joining and thank you for your contributions thus far! —A.S. Damick ^talk ^contribs 13:04, 25 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I shall. --Kuban Cossack 17:00, 25 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Cossacks, religion and boyars...

My dear Kuban kazak,

Please stop reverting passages about religious views of Cossacks and boyar history in the lands of Rus.

If you belive that Cossacks always were Orxodothes and had never defened states of Poland, Lithuania or Austria and its peolpe in the 16-17 century, then you have to read more books on the history of these countries and the Cossack history that were isssued not only in Russia but also in the West. If you have no access to the libraries of Warsaw,Vienna or Rome you can get information about Cossacks and their relations with Catholics on the e-net. You has written that you are a Cossack descendent, so you have to know the history of your ancestors beter. Do not narrow down the problem solely to Russia and Orthodoxy. Perhaps, modern Russian Cossacks are overwhelmingly Orxodoxes and your statements are partially correct. Cossacks, however, are not a private property of Russia and Russian Orthodox Church, they are a vivid pages of the history of many Eastern European countries and religious groups. Therefore, please be tolerant to the histories of other contries and write about Cossacks without nationalistic prejudice.

I do not understand your doubts about Boyars. Please refer to recent researchs in the field or just look at the Ukrainian version of the boyar article in Wikipedia. I hope as a Cossack descendent you can read the language of your ancestors.

Sincerely, 133.41.4.46 26 June 2006 A.D.

First of all Like it or not Cossacks were formed by Ruthenian people, Ruthenian people were Orthodox. It is as simple as that. And the Zaporozhian Cossacks were only one of the few Cossack groups on par with the Don Ural and Terek Cossacks. As for modern Ukrainian kozel-ks then really please do not mix circus with professional military. And yes I know well of my ancestors and we are still loyal to the Pereyaslavl treaty, which was signed to defend Orthodoxy.--Kuban Cossack 15:17, 26 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Dear Kuban Kazak,

I will repeat my statements once more.

1. The history of Cossacks does not start with the Pereyaslav Treaty. Before the treaty was signed many Cossacks of Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth fought Muscovite Orthodoxes several times. The period they supported Catholic states lasted for two centuries. As a Cossack you should know it. Do you think you can throw away this period from the history because of your Russian nationalistic beliefs?

Sure read Gogol's Taras Bulba, it explains excatly on the positon of Orthodox and Catholic relations.

2. Yes, many Ruthenian people were Orthodox. But where did you get that there were no Catholics or Protestants among them? You should read more books on the history of the Christian Church in the Eastern Europe.

Not many, absoloute majority. With the small exception of those that fell to the unia. As for Cossacks again Taras Bulba, and the Khmelnitsky uprising is excatly the result that came out of the attempted Catholicisation of Ruthenia.

Another point is following. Why do you suppose that all Orthodoxes in the Eastern Europe belonged to Russian Orthodox Church. Actually, till the end of the 18th century the vast lands of Belorussia and Ukraine were under the rule of the Constantinopole Patriarchy. And probably you ancestors were "Greek" Orxodoxes but not "Russian".

Actually it was the Kievan Metropolia not the Greek Orthodox Church. I very doubt that Pyotr Mogilla would have conducted liturgy in Greek. Don't be ridiculous.

3. You stress that the Zaporozhian Cossacks were only one of the few Cossack groups on par with the Don, Ural and Terek Cossacks. That is absolutelly true. But the problem is that you cannot describe all these groups as "Russian" and "Orthodxes". I would like to remind you that there were also Polish and Tatar Cossacks...

Sure, but read the article Nağaybäk, I think Orthodoxy still remains dominant

4. The last is your English. Please, use no slang and Russian-English mixed words. For example: " As for modern Ukrainian kozel-ks then really please do not mix circus with professional military"... 理解しかねます

In the ending, I would ask you to put back my corrections concerning the religion of Cossacks. If you would insist on your nationalistic interpritations I would be foreced to contact Wikipedia staff. Please do not violate the official policy on the English Wikipedia (NPOV, respect to other contribution etc.)

Read WP:POINT you are trying to induce a POV into the article several editors have already criticised it, if you care to use the talk page it will make life easier than edit wars. Regards --Kuban Cossack 16:48, 26 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Sincerely, 133.41.4.46 26 June 2006 A.D.

Russo-Canadian conflict :)

Mr Kosack (I don’t know your name). I had many problems with you previously as you know. Firstly, you are 100% correct. You have right of your opinion, judgment and expressions. I actually respect them at certain point. However, your threats of reporting me and so on are just another indication of your un-cooperative approach. You are attaching the sign of Nationalism to others when you have flag besides your name, which symbolizes Russian nationalism (dont tell me the history of it, please). By the way, you have violated the rule of self conduct by making sarcastic remark: “Funny you live in the western world yet free speach and civility is obviously not something you are familiar with.” That’s a personal attack and insult indeed. I’m ready for civilized conversation based on mutual respect, are you? I’m not sure due to your threats and comments above. However, If you still willing to communicate in civil manner and express your rights of free speech, I would gladly join you in discussion. However, with threats and insulting comments, you can not justify your claims against me, which you violate so freely. Go ahead Mr Kosack, report me and launch an investigation. I am not intimidated by that. On contrary. With respects. Ldingley 18:04, 1 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Sasha, Its nice to meet you too. I don’t understand what you want. I didn’t specifically insulted you or called you a Russian nationalist. Your classification of churches being more significant and famous is indeed a POV statement which has strange meaning behind it. Its fine with me that you are Monarchist (Long Live Romanovs). And it’s great that you have Ukrainian (I love Ukraine) wife (I have French girlfriend). I used Georgian church as example. So Moscow, Bulgarian, Jerusalem and Serbian are significant and famous but the rest are not? What is your scale measurement of significance of any church? But I will end this idiocy of discussion and war other nothing. As I told you before, I’m ready for civil and friendly discussion based on mutual respect. However, I’m afraid this does not suit your aims. And please don’t make threats and accusations on my talk page. If you want to report me, go ahead but without my involvement.

p.s Sasha, "This is a flag of Romanov dynasty and official flag of the Russian Empire until 1914. Russian nationalists often use this flag to show their opposition to "democratic" (meaning pro-Western/liberal) Russian elite (esp. under Yeltsin) who re-introduced white-blue-red flag after the Soviet Union collapse. For example some Wikipedians have userboxes like this" from Talk:Anti-national sentiment in Russia

I complied with your request. You may do whatever you want, go ahead and create any templates with Russian, Bulgarian, Serbian and Jerusalem churches. I give up. I don't have mood or energy to go on. Thanks. Ldingley 20:35, 1 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

p.s you are correct, Vlasov used old Russian flag. I don't belive Vlasov was Nazi or pro-Nazi. He wanted to liberate Russian from the Bolsheviks. Thats why he created POHA. He was unlucky. Ldingley 20:43, 1 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Well unfortunately, I do not share your viewpoint, USSR lost 26.6 million people to the nazi invasion... My family fought for the Red Army, for our country... As of Bolsheviks, hardly any were left by 1940s, most of them our Georgian leader removed in 1937. --Kuban Cossack 20:46, 1 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Unite/Ustaše

Hello me dru, forgive me a sinner. I was wanting to know if there is any russian perspective on the unite and the Ustaše? You know to add to the article. LoveMonkey 03:04, 2 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Belarusian cities

Hello KK! I am wondering about your edits to the list of cities in Belarus. Why did you replace Maladzyechna with Maladzechna forex.? Reading edited name sucha result will be got: Маладзэчна! I would probably agree with removing apostrophes, but i have a question: do rules of wiki forbid apostrophe in names? If not, they must be got back.

Let's get to a consensus. All the names of belarusian cities must be given in BGN/PCGN (for simple systematization). In articles:

• First name is given in Blr. BGN/PCGN
• in brackets: first name in Belarusian cyr., second - Russian cyr., third - in Ru BGN/PCGN. If the name in Ru. BGN/PCGN is the most widespread, then it's give not in cursive font, but ina bold.
• If the most widespread name doesn't follow rules of:
  • BLR BGN/PCGN
  • RU BGN/PCGN

then it must be written outa brackets with words , also known as before it..

I'll give an ex.:

Homyel (Belarusian: Гомель, Russian: Гомель, Russian BGN/PCGN: Gomel), also known as Homel ...

Seems logical to me, how to you? -- 82.209.211.194 15:23, 3 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

No no no. Think of the sound -ye as opposed to -e. Only in cases when the sound is pronounced, ie, after an apostrophe or a vowel does such a correction require. Otherwise -ye is used only in words beginning with the cyrillic E.--Kuban Cossack 22:10, 3 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Not quite so. This is valid for Russian language as opposed to Belarusian, which uses lots more of "Э", and so the BGN/PCGN system for Belarusian language always distinguishes "Е" (YE) and "Э" (E).

BTW, there's a Rules proposal (with rationale) in Talk:Maładečna, if you haven't noticed, do you object or possibly support it? ---Yury Tarasievich 13:25, 9 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Style of entries

KK, entries like these discredit you a whole lot. I removed one and rewriting whatever you have to say in a civil form is your homework. Unfortunately, no one, even admins, can do anything with abusive edit summary. You by far outperformed your "friend" user:KPbIC, whose language, manners and sneaky methods are admittedly not examplary, while your language was totally out of whack here. You will not get any support by such actions, no matter whether others agree or not with your positions. I suggest you appologize for the language you were using and I insist that you do not use it in the future. Using such style in these instances totally discredit your positions in other issues, even totally unrelated, in the eyes of the casual observers. So, cool it! --Irpen 22:33, 3 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Civility

Edit summary like this or entries like this, that or that are clearly unacceptable. Comment on the edit, not the editor. If you continue I would have to block you abakharev 23:30, 3 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

And will you block the relevant person for Stalking that he has continued for the past few months? --Kuban Cossack 23:32, 3 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Stalking, while deplorable, is a more complicated matter to cause the block and usually not by a unilateral decision. Civility issues are more immediately obvious and easiest to address simply because they are very clear and not because they are more damaging. Problems are treated not in the order of not their severity but the easiest are solved first. I thoroughly support unilateral blocks by admins when they care to thoroughly investigate the matter. Civility issues are most obvious and require least work to make a decision.

So, Krys did not do anything for which the block might be obvious. He may be often wrong on issues and he often usse sneaky ways but he controlls himself, unlike you. Don't become for the Russian community what AlexPU has become for the Ukrainian one. Cool it! Period. --Irpen 23:40, 3 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Just wanted to say...

COngratulations! And, if this is your first, Good Luck!--tufkaa 16:24, 6 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I also congratulate you:)) Cheers, —dima ^/sb.tk/ 17:18, 6 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hooray! My congratulations! abakharev 21:43, 6 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Удачи казаку! Искренне, KPbIC 22:40, 6 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'm joining in. Please accept my sincere congratulations as well!—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); 14:28, 7 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ура! Кстати, мальчик или кто? :) --Irpen 15:48, 7 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Двойня! Геннадий и Екатерина, так и назвали. --Kuban Cossack 15:38, 8 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Elk Salmon

Regarding the Moscow Metro article, I thought Elk Salmon had either accepted the table change or lost interest. I fear he will revert until the article stays at his preferred version. I'd hate to do this, but do you think it's time for an RfC? -- tariqabjotu 00:13, 18 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Draft it, we all have our limits, refusing a mediation is bad enough, but continuing to edit war...The time has matured, send me an e-mail before posting it (as a word document that I can preview in wikispace), make sure that we get it going before 23rd as I am off to Abkhazia for three weeks on that day. --Kuban Cossack 20:47, 18 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I created a draft at User:Tariqabjotu/Elk Salmon RfC. -- tariqabjotu 23:16, 18 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Are you satisfied with the draft? Can I move it to the proper place? -- tariqabjotu 23:54, 18 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Wait I am adding stuff to it. --Kuban Cossack 23:58, 18 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Oh whoops; I decided to just go ahead a move it. Go ahead and continue to add to it though; the RfC is allowed to change after first posting. -- tariqabjotu 00:06, 19 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ok 15 more minutes. --Kuban Cossack 00:07, 19 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Re:

RE:

Well, Cossack. Thanks for you offer, but you will hardly get a chance to take the photos of what I need most of all: defaced Georgian inscriptions and frescos and the destroyed grave of King Bagrat III at Bedia Monastery in the Gali district (southeast Abkhazia). Anyway, it would be great if you could take a few shots of New Athos monastery and Pitsunda cathedral (some 20 km from Gagra). See you, Kober 05:37, 21 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Btw, I just noticed that you became a dad. Congratulations, and good luck!--Kober 05:41, 21 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Eastern Orthodoxy

Given the fact, that you are speaking of "Uniate - Catholic" aggression in the Eastern Orthodox wikiproject, makes me fear you will make biased statements. You might want to look at the history of persecution of "Uniate" Eastern Catholics by Stalinists, Communists, Czarists and nationalists and their ongoing discrimination. Maybe Eastern Orthodox were discriminated by Austria-Hungary and persecuted by the Ustashe, but surely not by "Uniates". That's an historical lie which makes me fear you will not contribute to encyclical objectivity in those articles.Smith2006 17:46, 22 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Persecution by Stalinists and Communists? Well first of all wrt to Tsarists, (let's take things one at a time) in 1795 following the last partition of Poland Russian Empire gained a lion's share of ethnically Ruthenian land. Immediately there were voiced from the Russian Orthodox Church to force their revertion to Orthodoxy. But Empress Cathrine II overruled the ROC Synod's attempts with a mandate on religious freedom. Only those out of free will that chose to revert did so. Moreover the social structure of those lands remained unchanged. Polish magnates still ruled the countryside. Russian presence was very limited, whilst cities were mostly populated by Jewish/Polish people as well. That continued until 1831 when the Poles launched the November Uprising. Because the Uniate synod supported it, after the Russian Imperial victory, those bishops were purged. As were the authorities of Polish magnates. Eight years later, the Uniate church at the synod of Polotsk terminated the Brest Unia.

Today Belarus remains overwhelmingly an Orthodox country. Austro-Hungary, you might add the massacre of Thalergof, when over a thousand Galician Ruthenians who refused to remain Uniate were slaughtered. Or how about the later second republic of Poland when thousands of Orthdox property in eastern Poland was confiscated and handed to Catholic authorities.

Now then, Soviets, I as someone whose family lived through the USSR times know of what it was like from the inside, and yes it was not a honeymoon, but it was not living hell. After the war, the uniate church, agreed to live peacefully with the communists, in return hardly any church property was confiscated, even Nikita Khrushchev during his visit to Western Ukraine, paid a visit to the head of the Uniate church. Yes there was a group in 1940s which called for compleate annexation of the Uniates into Orthodoxy, yes they did manage to convince the Soviet authorities to do so. BUT the ROC actually condemns the Synod of Lvov. Also even though the synod did make all the uniate church Orthodox, the overall structure was unaffected. If you remained a local cleric, you still were a local cleric. The Orthodox canons were also relaxed on those territories, allowing the clergy to shave beards for example or conduct liturgy in Ukrainian rather than Slavonic. Talk about purges and repressions, at times when the Orthodox communities in the USSR numbered just over a thousand, nearly half of those were in western Ukraine. In Lviv only ONE chuch was closed. Finally let I remind you that even though the ROC does condemn the Synod of Lvov, nevertheless for two generations it raised the Uniate clergy in its seminaries and academies.

Now then 1989, Rukh and the new Uniate people declare that all property held by UGCC in 1939 be returned promptly. What happens next? Violance, of extreme measure, when gangs used to break into the churches and beat (sometimes to death) Orthodox priests. Or how the newely elected "democratic" local government turned a blind eye on it. You want to talk about NPOV, then I suggest heavily you first drop all double standards. --Kuban Cossack 18:08, 22 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

---

Last Message

This is my last message prior to going on holiday, if you have issues that you want to raise with me, do leave them bellow, but do realise I will not answer them until the 15th. --Kuban Cossack 19:37, 22 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

line 3a

It cost me some time, but I finally managed to find a map showing FL as line 3a: here. Errabee 21:39, 22 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]