The IPs do not seem to match, but I posted a reminder on the talk page of the most recent IP nevertheless. Hopefully that'll be the same IP s/he use when logging in next time. Pattern or no pattern, our first assumption should be that that person is simply not aware of the rules.—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); 15:07, 10 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Hello Kuban kazak, I am looking for the real image of this above stamp. I searched it every where possible (such as World War II), but failed. Would you please help me to find it out? Thanks in advance--NAHID20:59, 14 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Answering to your question: I removed them, because they are not on list. If you can see them on the official list of twinning towns ([1]) please show where. As of January 2008 there isn't even a single Russian town on the list. Of course there also are many partner cities, but that list is much longer ([2]) and has nothing to do with section entitled "Sister cities", because twin town is not the same as partner town. Furthermore I mentioned overall number of partner towns in my edits, especially Russian one. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.5.214.5 (talk) 09:04, 20 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Russia to spend $5 bln on Chechnya development in 2008-2011
I hope part of it will go to the 250,000+ non-Chechen refugees who fled the ethnic cleansing that was imposed on the republic in the early 1990s, and that people of Naursky, Shelkovsky, Nadterechny, Sunzhensky regions and Grozny will be allowed to return to their homes. --Kuban Cossack14:28, 23 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Do you know if the colors in this image are right? Apparently it's the coat of arms of the Yaraoslav although in the source it is in black and white, not the blue and yellow colors of the modern Ukrainian coat of arms the uploader changed it to. He has uploaded several other Rus symbols using this coloring.--Miyokan (talk) 12:53, 26 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
2.4.1. Азовское казачье войско. Ф. 877. 1834 - 1866 гг. 361 ед. хр.
2.4.2. Войсковое правление Амурского казачьего войска. Ф. 1573. 1878- 1918 гг. 1314 ед. хр.
2.4.3. Войсковая земская управа Амурского казачьего войска. Ф. 1577. 1916 - 1918 гг. 3 ед. хр.
2.4.4. Областное правление Войска Донского. Ф. 1330. 1793 - 1917 гг. 48 ед. хр.
2.4.5. Комитет об устройстве Войска Донского. Ф. 331. 1819 - 1835 гг. 772 ед. хр.
2.4.6. Делопроизводство сенаторов Княжнина и Болгарского, назначенных для приведения в действие высочайше утвержденного 26 мая 1835 г. Положения об управлении Донским войском. Ф. 357. 1835 - 1837 гг. 20 ед. хр.
2.4.7. Управление начальника артиллерии Донского казачьего войска. Ф. 1331. 1892 - 1894 гг. 3 ед. хр.
2.4.8. Енисейское казачье войсковое управление. Ф. 954. 1917 г. 1 ед. хр.
2.4.9. Забайкальское казачье войско. Ф. 1553. 1881 - 1919 гг. 128 ед. хр.
2.4.10. Кавказское линейное казачье войско. Ф. 1058. 1833 - 1860 гг. 2308 ед. хр.
2.4.11. Комитет высочайше учрежденный для составления проекта Положения об устройстве Кавказского линейного казачьего войска. Ф. 15044. 1839 - 1845 гг. 35 ед. хр.
2.4.12. Кубанское казачье войско. Ф. 643. 1793 - 1918 гг. 203 ед. хр.
2.4.13. Комитет, учрежденный для составления проекта положения об устройстве Черноморского войска. Ф. 896. 1835 - 1838 гг. 65 ед. хр.
2.4.14. Новороссийское казачье войско. Ф. 645. 1843 - 1866 гг. 54 ед. хр.
2.4.15. Оренбургское казачье войско. Ф. 1445. 1853 - 1918 гг. 49 ед. хр.
2.4.16. Семиреченское казачье войско. Ф. 1434. 1868 - 1917 гг. 10 ед. хр.
2.4.17. Сибирское казачье войско. Ф. 752. 1858 - 1917 гг. 12 ед. хр.
2.4.18. Войсковое правление Терского казачьего войска. Ф. 1329. 1859 - 1917 гг. 49 ед. хр.
2.4.19. Уральское казачье войско. Ф. 653. 1773 - 1917 гг. 9 ед. хр.
2.4.20 Войсковое правление Уссурийского казачьего войска. Ф. 1582. 1889 - 1918 гг. 1466 ед. хр.
2.4.21. Гленовский участок Уссурийского казачьего войска. Ф. 1588. 1917 г. 2 ед. хр.
Ukrainian wikipedian Yakudza is trying to get this image deleted. Looks at these edits of his - [5], [6], [7]. His reason is "not corresponds WP:NFCC, the author is not specified, there is a picture collage of two photos". He does not list why it does not correspond to WP:NFCC, the author of an image is not required as far as I'm aware as long as it has a source, and the vast majority of images on wikipedia do not list who the author of the image is in their source, and I don't even know what his third reason is supposed to mean. Could you look into it?--Miyokan (talk) 11:37, 1 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Mabey we shouldn't escalate this. Edit's like this: [9] show that Kuban is not the enemy of Wikiproject Ukraine. This is prob. a case of diffrent interpertations of actions and words. Mariah-Yulia (talk) 22:38, 1 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Join the party
Some guy, with a contributaion showing he loves Chechenians, started this. He already tried to start an edit war, but Papa November was there to do a good job and take it under control. Anyway, i'm going to keep an eye on the article, and i ask you to do so it whenever possible. Log in, log out (talk) 18:22, 3 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
A recent creation largely "refering" to the style of your upload Image:Moscow metro.png but with Russian and English texts totally separated into 2 images. Since you're a major Moscow Metro article contributor, if you consider to use this one over the PNG version. This SVG is currently lacking of Monorail. Russian version still require some text positioning that I will later take care of. And 1 more thing, being uploaded to Commons Wikimedia, I do not include the official logos for fair use concern. -- Sameboat - 同舟 (talk) 01:13, 4 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I don't like some parts of it, first of all stations on Moscow metro are never represented as squares, but rather as circles, and big ones, same goes for termi, second again expansion are not entirly correct, since several parts are missing, thirdly no river, fourthly geometry (you put a bend on the STL, but forgot about the more profilific one for the SL) fifthly there are no right angle turns as you put on the BLLM (considering that geographically its the other way). So no, I prefer to use the official version, besides SVGs are not supported by all browsers. --Kuban Cossack07:58, 4 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
"besides SVGs are not supported by all browsers." SVG in Wikipedia are rendered as bitmap by Wiki's engine. So browser capability has no effect on SVG. -- Sameboat - 同舟 (talk) 08:49, 4 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Just to remind you since you may come across more SVG files in Wiki later. In "My Preference" - "Files", set the "Limit images on file description pages to" largest amount, so you will not be limited within 800px width by default. If you wanna zoom it, more or less you should save the bitmap file (PNG) or the SVG file itself and view it in another software. The problem you've encountered is a common glitch or not. The raw file of SVG is supposed to be viewed by specific software rather than internet browser, at least in this stage. -- Sameboat - 同舟 (talk) 09:26, 4 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I agree. I'm not familiar with the specific reason for this block but can attest to this editor's generally collaborative approach. I can't believe he was blocked when certain other editors have not been.Faustian (talk) 03:36, 5 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Well it is a good thing a power cut in our stanitsa left me deaf to the internet for the weekend, just to find Folantin permabanned. Sometimes it really is a case that when you have a problem you feel powerless to solve its best to leave for a while and check later. AND CELEBRATE THE VICTORY!--Kuban Cossack08:11, 7 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Welcome back
The Original Barnstar
For fighting against Chechen nationalists pushing their POV. For staying civil even thought you were insulted and lies were told about you. Your block was not justified and even Ukrainian nationalists protested it on your talk page. Welcome back! Log in, log out (talk) 09:46, 7 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks but, don't call them by their nationality, also the Ukrainian nationalists concerned here are far from being nationalist, and don't put them off by calling them that, most are hard working wikipedians and we need support among them not hatred. --Kuban Cossack09:51, 7 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
As for the fight against Chechen nationalists again don't say that, neither of those users are actually Chechen, and the fight or should I say more correctly the seeking for justice is far from over. Nonetheless I thank for your support, and everyone else who has expressed it. --Kuban Cossack09:51, 7 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I mean even now after all what happened, someone clearly has not learned their lesson about personal attacks based on their national and political belief. This most certainly calls for detailed public scrutiny and forget about RfCs the only place this is going is the arbcom. --Kuban Cossack09:56, 7 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Abkhazia
I am interested to know your opinion on this. What do you think will happen or what is the feeling within the Russian military with regards to Abkhazia? Do you think that they will stay independent, become a part of Russia, or will Georgia reassert control? Do you think Georgia will invade and if they do, do you think they'll win? Will the same thing also happen to South Ossetia?--Miyokan (talk) 13:54, 7 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
As you might have found out by now User:Log in, log out is banned by (User:Alex Bakharev) cause he is supposed to be a sockpupet from MVEi. I MSN chatted with MVEi months ago and somehowe feel that Log in, log out is not MVEi! It would be a shame as a young editors as Log in, log out would be banned just because he has some of the same intrest as MVEi.... I left a message on User talk:Alex Bakharev would you care to defend User:Log in, log out there too? Or do you have good reason to believe he is a sockpupet? I hope I'm not wrong about this, cause that would mean I'm easily foold... Mariah-Yulia (talk) 01:56, 8 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Greetings - I've just expanded my article about Oleksander Hrekov based on the Russian wikipedia page: [12] My Russian is not perfect, so perhaps if you have time you can take a look to make sure my translations were accurate. Thanks!Faustian (talk) 23:57, 8 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks Faustian, I will have a look at it, but here is a major but, one should never trust another wikipedia article fully, its best to write the article from sources not translations. --Kuban Cossack08:02, 9 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks. I know it can be annoying when someone else edits articles you started, but please understand that I was only trying to improve the article according to the guidelines. --BorgQueen (talk) 08:03, 21 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Talk page archive
The reason why I didn't archive Folantin's comment too, was that he at least made reference to the question I asked. The archiving is only there to keep some structure to the discussion - I'm not trying to censor anyone. If you disagree with one of my decisions about archiving, let me know on my talk page and I'll consider changing it. It's better not to change other people's talk page contributions though. Papa November (talk) 15:41, 21 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
History of Ukraine
In Ukrainian Wikipedia the HOLODOMOR is one of the major events listed in their History Template. What is wrong with including it in English Wikipedia? Bobanni (talk) 11:24, 22 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Abuse of Bialystok region-related historical articles
I don't have a problem with people adding additional content to the articles, like some of the additions to the Grodno Governorate, but I do have a problem with persons scrubbing any Polish references out. I do find it interesting that the changes occurred only after my complaint about the Congress Poland-related articles. I don't have an axe to grind in the centuries-old struggles between the two cultures. I am looking to just have the articles use common ENGLISH names. Ajh1492 (talk) 18:22, 25 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Edit summaries
Please be more specific in your edit summaries. When a template content is under discussion, it would be appropriate to keep content and style edits separate, and to clearly label any content changes.[13] Cheers. —MichaelZ. 2008-07-25 21:10 z
Proposed massive reorganization of the UPA article
This is the fourth time in a month that you have reverted all of an editor's edits to this article because you disagree with the changes to the image layout. Don't do that. "Neatness" is not an excuse to veto edits to articles, and at least two editors disagree that this contravention of MOS:IMAGES is "neater" anyway. I'm going to restore the last version tomorrow; what you can do is think of a way to format the images which suits you without making the article inaccessible or obviously out of line with the Manual of Style. In future, if you find yourself reverting edits more than once, the onus is on you to explain why the previous version is correct and to show that there is consensus for it. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk12:34, 4 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Yes I reverted it because I find that the article structure that you propose is not visually attractive, a previous editor found the same issue, and agreed that whilst MOS is a guideline for most cases, it is not a policy and that means it allows exceptions. I agree with your text edits, but leave the image layout alone please. FYI I have wrote the article from a petty stub, and please show some respect to the authors. --Kuban Cossack (По-балакаем?) 12:37, 4 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
No. You've got no special rights on the article's development. If everyone got veto rights on any articles that they'd created, it would be much harder to get anything done on Wikipedia. You most certainly don't get to simply roll back changes any time you don't like them with a vague edit summary. As I see it, both BorgQueen and I disagree with the image placement, and only you support it. In addition, several edits to remove peacock words such a "imposing" and "majestic" have still not bee restored. I'll post on the article's talk page with proposed solutions. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk13:21, 4 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Hope you are safe
...If you are heading for Ossetia. I take no sides in this conflict (I just think it's sad when Christians are killing each other), but I certainly have the best wishes for you to be safe and that no harm will come to you.Faustian (talk) 14:45, 8 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
){kind=link}
){kind=link}
![[11]](http://koekjekoekje.nl/fras/captainobvious.jpg){kind=link}
