User talk:Ghirlandajo: Difference between revisions

Did you know? was updated. On 30 August, 2007, a fact from the article Henry Hunt (politician), 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.

~ Riana ⁂ 10:32, 30 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Andrey, I am always amazed and delighted by the periodic DYKs that appear on my talk page, largely thanks to the work you do on the raw material I provide on the Humanities Desk. We make an ideal partnership, a little like Marx and Engels, or Laurel and Hardie! All the very best from Anastasia. Clio the Muse 22:39, 30 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Did you know? was updated. On 30 August, 2007, a fact from the article Nikolay Kruchina, 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.

--Peta 23:58, 30 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Did you know? was updated. On 31 August, 2007, a fact from the article Ladoga Canal, 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, for the nth time, for your nominations. Daniel 06:41, 31 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Made some additions based on Brook and an article by Ehud Ya'ari. They both call the site "Khumar". Should we rename the article "Khumarinskoye gorodishche" or "Khumar", as Skhimar seems a rather obscure Georgian designation? --Briangotts (Talk) (Contrib) 03:15, 1 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

- are both just dic defs. I've left pleas in a couple of places, & can chip in myself, but I'm sure you could make a great job of them. Any chance? Johnbod 19:15, 1 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

My feeling (lurking as usual) is that any material that could go here would be more encyclopedic if incorporated under Noble court (bad title), even as separate sub-sections. These should be redirects, IMO. --Wetman 22:21, 1 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I hadn't seen that. It certainly is a terrible title, but the article is a start. "Courtier" should probably redirect there, but "favourite" certainly deserves its own article. Johnbod 01:28, 2 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry for the late reply. I have been very busy lately. I will address the issue when I have time (hopefully tonight).Hajji Piruz 23:59, 1 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Howdy partner, liked your storm page Meteoguy 18:26, 4 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your additions to the Trans-Caspian Railway article! However, I am asking that it be moved from Central Asian Railway back to its original article name. While 'Central Asian Railway' is a correct translation from the Russian name, it is rarely (if ever) used in English. I have checked all my English-language Central Asia books, and all mentions of the railway (from both historical-based and modern works) call it the Trans-Caspian. A Google search also verifies that this is the more common English name.

Ditto for the 'Tashkent Railway' article, which already exists as Trans-Aral Railway. I added all your info from the Tashkent Railway article to the Trans-Aral article, and then added a re-direct. I just wanted to let you know. Cheers! Otebig 18:30, 4 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Did you know? was updated. On 4 September, 2007, a fact from the article Coptic architecture, 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 22:17, 4 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Your Featured picture candidate has been promoted Your nomination for featured picture status, Image:Rozh.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. MER-C 09:43, 5 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

On 5 September, 2007, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Catherine of Cleves, 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 23:15, 5 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Would anyone like to comment on this? --Joopercoopers 11:03, 6 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Girlandajo! You wrote on the talk page of the article on Uspenski Cathedral in Helsinki that: "There is no explanantion why a church in Helsinki should occupy this generic title". There definitely is an explanation: Finland and Russia happen to have a common history 1809-1917. Kindly read my comment on this on the talk page of the article. By the way, your analysis about Wikipedia on your user page is thoughtprovoking! Cheers! --Tellervo 11:45, 6 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ghirla, hi, I'm needing the help of a Wikipedia editor who actually knows something about the Mongols (in particular about their activities in the late 1200s). Preferably someone who actually has access to reliable sources, as opposed to someone who's just doing Google searches through pseudohistory websites.  :/ Would you be a good person to help with this, or could you point me at someone else that might be able to help? Thanks, Elonka 19:47, 6 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I wished to refer you to User:PHG but, since you seem to be in dispute with him, you will be well-served to get a third opinion from User:Adam Bishop (on medieval Palestine) and User:Latebird (on the Mongols). I suppose User:Briangotts and User:Srnec may be interested in commenting as well. --Ghirla^-трёп- 20:06, 6 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. I see that PHG has done a lot of fine work on other articles in the past, so I was a bit surprised to see the use of some unreliable sources as regards the Knights Templar. Hopefully it's just because PHG was putting too much trust into some websites that turned out to be pseudo-history fluff (there's a lot of that where the Templars are concerned). I'm hopeful that once we find some reliable sources, things can be straightened out fairly quickly. Thanks for the help, Elonka 20:21, 6 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, do we need two articles on the same topic Battle of the Dardanelles (1807)? I notice you haved edited at them both. Chessy999 00:40, 7 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, just to let you know that I protested against the by-passing of the nomination process here regarding the Kazanowski Palace. --Camptown 20:47, 7 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The article was not "bypassed" due to Kazanowski Palace, but due to the fact that the nomination for Anne de Joyeuse was accompanied by a good quality image and including the article in the update indicated by Camptown would have resulted in the image not being used. In the past, you have expressed extreme displeasure when this was not done. Have you changed your attitude about image use since then? --Allen3 ^talk 14:09, 8 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hmm, my principal objection was that Andrey's comments were ignored when Kazanowski Palace was posted on the main page... --Camptown 12:00, 9 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

On 8 September, 2007, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Anne de Joyeuse, 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.

---- Anonymous Dissident^Talk 02:50, 8 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hi there. I saw your suggestions at the Reference Desk thread. Do you know of anyone (maybe you?) who would be able to draw up a more complete list of the most famous "battle" and "war" paintings that we should have articles on? commons:Category:Battle paintings might help. The list so far is:

• Hannibal Crossing the Alps
• Apotheosis of War
• Sevastopol Panorama
• Borodino Panorama

Any more ideas? Carcharoth 08:04, 9 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Did you know? was updated. On 9 September, 2007, a fact from the article Battle of the Alta River, 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.

--Allen3 ^talk 10:52, 9 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Your Featured picture candidate has been promoted Your nomination for featured picture status, Image:Ivan the Terrible and Harsey.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. Chris B • talk • contribs 14:31, 11 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Ghirlandajo! Thank you very much for the star! I do appreciate very much! Best regards PHG 15:16, 11 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Did you know? was updated. On 12 September, 2007, a fact from the article pseudo-Nero , 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.

--Allen3 ^talk 15:16, 12 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I think the general idea is good (temperature information is encyclopedic and useful), but I, too, don't care much about this particular implementation. Peacock colors aside, the template is so wide (regardless of whether it is hidden by default) that it would more often than not clash with infoboxes and images. In Irkutsk in particular, there is no way to fix this situation unless the "Geography and climate" section is expanded (more than twice) or moved down (which isn't desirable either), or if the infobox is removed. I don't really know if there is a good solution.—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); 16:01, 12 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

On 14 September, 2007, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article yasak, 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 11:25, 14 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You never answered my question - why did you retask an article you've never edited before? --Golbez 14:21, 14 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Golbez, the rumor has it that you commented on this drama earlier today on IRC in a nice chat with Alexa in a civil and proper for form of course, for an admin and for a chat between a gentlemen and a lady. Could you just repeat that onwiki and we will proceed from there in this Q&A session? --Irpen 15:46, 14 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I fail to see both why you are communicating with me on someone else's talk page about something that happened off-wiki, what this has to do with my question, and why you're even communicating with me after I made it clear I have no intention to respond. And just to make it clear, this is my last response to you about anything pertaining to Ghirlandajo. If you have a question for me, drop it on my talk page, so I may ignore it more appropriately. --Golbez 15:56, 14 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Golbez, I believe I have made it clear on IRC that I've had my share of your insults for today. Please leave me alone. I don't follow IRC discussions, you are free to continue insulting me behind my back for as long as you like. A gang of nationalists will probably be grateful for the show. Best, Ghirla^-трёп- 16:10, 14 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Since medieval history is your cup of tea, could you please look at the edit war at Berehynia. I wrote this short article long ago and now Hillock seems eager to make a change supported by sources that seem dubious to me. Could you comment on how serious these sources appear to you or maybe you know of any other literature on the subject. TIA, --Irpen 04:32, 16 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Dear Ghirlandajo, I was simply trying to show you that your admin abuse allegations are baseless. You may not agree with admins, you may not agree with deletions an admin made, but that's no reason to be desysoped. In the same vein, if someone disagrees with your edit, that's no reason take your priveleges away. As for the RfC, are you aware that there need to be two other users who certify the dispute? I highly doubt that will happen because of one of my deletions. Maxim_(talk) 12:46, 16 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ghirlandajo, I don't want you banned of the project. You're a brilliant article writer, and we don't have enough. I was simply making the comparison to your allegations of admin abuse. Я хочу чтобы ты остались здесь, я просто сравнил то что ты говорил про администраторов, и если администратор посмотрит на тебя с твоим мышлением. Maxim_(talk) 13:33, 16 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Glad you liked it! I'll have to think on the caption - I'm never good at those. Cheers Johnbod 13:21, 18 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I don't have a problem with your sig, it just seemed a bit hypocritical of you to complain of someone else using Cyrillic in their sig. I'm not sure what you mean about IRC. —Random832 23:45, 19 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It does not require any knowledge of cyrillics to read my name in the signature. Not so with Suva, while Digwuren's signature is completely disconnected from his user name. This does make a difference, doesn't it? I'm surprised that I need to explain this to you. --Ghirla^-трёп- 23:48, 19 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

(I can continue this discussion on here or on my userpage, whichever you prefer) - It takes only a mouseover to read the usernames in either. I think it is a slippery slope. Is Redvers's signature (REDVEЯS) acceptable? What about JzG, whose signature reads simply "Guy"? How about User:Radiant!'s, which I mention only because it lacks a punctuation mark present in his actual username. (I see what you mean about IRC now, though, it's worth mentioning that I've been in and out of #wikipedia in the past week and seen not a breath of this "campaign of harassment" - this was, indeed, my first encounter with any of you that I was aware of) --—Random832 00:03, 20 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I now think he misunderstood the link to "Moscou": [1]. That is a hamlet where I lived for some time. The place was NOT called that way in honour of "the French victory at Borodino" as many French tourists think. It was named after a detachment of Cossacks, who stayed there in 1815 waiting for a Cossack general to return from England. During the Hundred Days, Louis XVIII came to Ghent, and was put under their protection. Ghent tourist guides still mention the story of the French King sweating in his carriage, waiting for his Cossack guard to take him from his Hotel in the Veldstraat to the French consulate at St Anne's (both the Hotel Steenhuize and St. Anne's French consulate still exist). Louis XVIII, "Lowie die zwiet" (Louis who transpires) is still a nickname in Ghent for a, er, rather fat man. After Waterloo, the cossacks seem to have left for Paris, which they may have entered together with Tsar Alexander, but I cannot source that. I am sure, however, that there were no Russian soldiers at Waterloo, though the French may have thought otherwise: a small part of the Russo-German legion (by then incorporated into the Prussian army) reached Waterloo and was still wearing their green (Russian) uniforms. This photograph was once put on the internet to show how "Russian" the architecture of Moscou is. But that dom is actually in Ledeberg, the cottage houses on the left are in Moscou.

There is a "famous" tram service from the main Ghent station to where I used to live. I can assure you that there are some American tourists who think that the "Moscou" tram really drives all the way to Russia. The Dutch spelling of the capital of Russia is actually MosKou. In any case, since he uses the same "travels and life" set up, Martin should have seen in my travels that Russia was marked with weeks only. Before turning me into a Russian, he should have noticed that there was something funny there. --Pan Gerwazy 10:27, 20 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

On 20 September, 2007, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Nikolai Yevreinov, 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 16:09, 20 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Regardless of my zero knowledge of the history behind all these matters, I said that because why should administrators stoop down to that level to communicate their point? It really isn't necessary and in the future if someone with or without a history uses the board inappropriately, I would really be disappointed to see another response like that.¤~Persian Poet Gal ^(talk) 16:31, 20 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It's a pity that nobody bothered to reproach Digwuren for referring to me as a "troll without a specific gender"[2] and to Bishonen as "an associate member of Cartel USSR Forever!".[3] I am subjected to such abuse on a daily basis, but this does not entitle me to run to ANI and spawn frivolous threads requesting "a block, indefinite but to be lifted immediately upon display of remorse, to prevent further violations of WP:CIV", as Digwuren has been doing.[4] I made a mental note that, when Bishonen attempted to put an end to disruption of the noticeboard and the stream of insults in her usual resolute and effective manner, you found it reasonable to scold her for that and to demand more "good faith" to the editor who has been insulting me as "a troll without a specific gender" for several months now. You may be assured that I'm not impressed by your failure to identify trolling and to deal with it in any meaningful way. I don't know about your background, but I am here for writing the encyclopaedia rather than promoting "wikilove" to the most odious disruptors. --Ghirla^-трёп- 06:21, 21 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This is not PD-Russia, this image is copyrighted. Alex Spade 07:13, 21 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

So what's the problem? Either update the license or nominate for deletion. I don't care. --Ghirla^-трёп- 07:14, 21 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I can retag this image as {{Non-free poster}}, but I cann't write {{Non-free use rationale}}. Alex Spade 09:19, 21 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hey. It is indeed PD-Russia. It cannot be considered Fine art (paintings, sculptures etc.) it is propaganda poster made by Soviet gov. establishment. These kind of posters are qualified as public domain in Russia. Владимир И. Сува Чего? 12:54, 21 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I made a fair use rationale for now. I hope this works. Владимир И. Сува Чего? 16:35, 21 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, so it was слово as in Слово о плъку Игоревѣ. That makes sense. I knew there was little chance that Saint Gregory would have mentioned Slavic water sprites back in the 4th century. Cheers. --Folantin 18:53, 22 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Ghirlandajo! I do appreciate! PHG 18:48, 23 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

1. I'm in a dispute here (by the way, your own input there would be appreciated) where Dojarca claims that Rodina-Mat' referred to the USSR and not Russia. However, was there not a revived Great Russian nationalism during the Great Patriotic War, with even the Church brought back to life? I suppose an article on the concept would be illuminating, but until then, I'll see what you may have to say.

I don't believe it would be reasonable for me to discuss this subject with a person who describes the country that eradicated the fascist plague as a "fascist state".[5][6] Please reflect which country was Hitler's jackal and which proved its ruin before posting further inflammatory comments of this sort. Eight German soldiers out of ten died on the Eastern front, fighting at Kursk and Stalingrad side by side with Romanians. It adds nothing to your argument to misapply terms on this scale. --Ghirla^-трёп- 20:08, 25 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'll send you an e-mail explaining this, if I may. Biruitorul 22:55, 25 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

2. I know ий can be transliterated either -iy or -y, but when, if ever, is one preferred over the other? See point 2 here for why I ask, and why I think -y should be used in that case.

Your are correct on this point. User:Ezhiki is the ultimate authority on WP:RUS, though. --Ghirla^-трёп- 20:08, 25 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, I will ask him as well. Biruitorul 22:55, 25 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

3. I note we lack an article on the Domostroi - is that something which you would be interested in writing at some point?

Please check Domostroy. --Ghirla^-трёп- 20:08, 25 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Oops, sorry. Biruitorul 22:55, 25 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your help. Biruitorul 23:42, 24 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ghirla, I suspect that Professor Vize has been made up by a determined hoaxer whom I've caught at Talk:Huvadhu_Atoll, while following up leads on a hoaxer I uncovered at Bourges. What do you think of "Professor Vize" with all his legitimnate links?--Wetman 02:15, 25 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, no: he's at German Wiki as Wladimir Wiese. --Wetman 03:05, 25 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ghirla, I know you have your hands full all the time but if you have a minute, please consider taking a look at the Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/House of Gediminas and improving it if needed. I know of no better expert in the princely genealogy than yourself. --Irpen 03:34, 25 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Ghirla, please do not hesitate to drop by on the Talk:Franco-Mongol alliance page, as there is some dispute as the extent and nature of the alliance. Your expertise would be welcome. Best regards. PHG 07:27, 25 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, Ghirla. I hadn't spotted the use of Template:WPRDAC before, it's a great idea. Xn4 18:35, 26 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

can we discuss this amicably? I realize there is a history to this, and I don't want to trample over things, but the pages have issues. Most conspicuously, the sheer scope overlap of Etymology of Rus and Rus' (people). I don't want to push this unduly, there is no deadline, but some cleanup is definitely in order. regards, dab (𒁳) 21:23, 27 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

ok, Ghirla, you are much more familiar with this topic than I. To the casual reader, it appears that there is a Rus people, and then there are two polities known as "Rus", viz. the Rus Khaganate and the Kievan Rus. It turns out that this isn't the case at all. The "Rus people" are in fact (a) the people of the Rus Khaganate, and (b) the people of the Kievan Rus. Then it appears that Rhos is the Byzantine Greek term for Varangians. And that these are all somehow related, but it cannot be precisely established how. Based on this, I suggest we simply {{merge}} Rus' (people) into Etymology of Rus, because all it does is discuss various hypothesis of how the term originated. The actual polities are already well covered at Rus Khaganate and Kievan Rus, and there is no third entity to be covered beyond these, just various etymological hypotheses. This is merely about re-organizing the existing material more clearly, I do not intend to take away or add any content. --dab (𒁳) 09:41, 28 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

could you also look at the terminology as laid out at wikt:Русь? dab (𒁳) 10:18, 28 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Ghirla,

Just to let you know that the Featured Picture Image:Maslenitsa kustodiev.jpg is due to make an appearance as Picture of the Day on October 6, 2007. If you get a chance, you can check and improve the caption at Template:POTD/2007-10-06. howcheng {chat} 23:35, 28 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for the notice. I did wonder whether the picture would appear on Main Page at all; it was promoted more than three months ago. --Ghirla^-трёп- 21:02, 29 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding Vladimir Wiese, is there a reason why you chose the German spelling "Wiese" instead of "Vize"? I have noticed that, except for the works that he wrote in German, he is most of the times (like for example in the bibliographies that appear in W. Barr's books), referred to as Professor "V. Yu. Vize". Mohonu 03:41, 29 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. I was just curious to know and I assume that since you are Russian you will know better.Mohonu 21:12, 29 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Do we have an article on dom tvorchestva? I'm curious of its translation if exists. --Brand спойт 10:07, 30 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Why, I'm not even aware about our article about dom kultury, which is definitely more notable. Google implies that the "house of creative work" is a more popular translation than a sowewhat more literal "house of creativity". --Ghirla^-трёп- 20:42, 1 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you Ghirlandajo for your authoritative support. I do appreciate very much. Best regards. PHG 19:38, 30 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I really dislike how the dispute has been degenerating. I urge you both to stop accusing each other of incivility and concentrate on resolving the content dispute at hand. Reducing discussion to the level of mutual accusations in incivility is never helpful. Elonka has the reputation for never being able to let go, for needing implacably to triumph. I don't imply that this is necessarily a bad thing for a wikipedian, especially one who regularly deals with trolls and kooks, but in this particular case such an approach is not really called for. Guys, please be more considerate and respectful towards each other. Perhaps some sort of mediation is in order. --Ghirla^-трёп- 19:44, 30 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ghirla, hi, I have to admit that I'm very confused about something you said about me. Would it be alright if we talked about it for a moment? My impression of you is that you're a prolific editor, who cares deeply about Wikipedia. I've read your userpage, and I agree with much of what you say! To my knowledge, we've never actually worked together on an article, though if I'm misremembering something, please let me know.

A couple times now, I've seen you refer to me as someone who "has to be proven right." Each time you've said this, I have been perplexed as to how you got this impression. Indeed, I feel that I am often criticized for the opposite, for being too quick to compromise! So, if you don't mind, could we clear the air a bit? Could you be more specific as to what you think that I have done, which has given you this negative impression of me? I definitely see you as someone that I would like to have as an ally, and not as an enemy. If you could please let me know what I might be able to do, to help us put any disagreements behind us, I would be very appreciative. Thanks, Elonka 17:34, 1 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, Elonka. I appreciate your efforts to make Wikipedia a better place and would be delighted to work with you some day when I shall have more time for Wikipedia. You should excuse my statement about your need to always be in the right, if it is disconnected from reality, since it was not intended as a negative assessment of your general activity and was based primarily on my acquaintance with the recent RfA dramas which certaintly don't highlight this penchant for easy compromises.

As for the matter at hand, I urge you and PHG to reconcile your differences without alleging some terrible misdeeds on the part of one's opponent. For as long as I know him, PHG has been given to speculative theories and building elaborate castles on rather flimsy foundations, but overall he is an inestimable contributor of material on rather obscure topics. I suppose you both have the best interests of Wikipedia at heart and will find a way to honourably emerge from this imbroglio. --Ghirla^-трёп- 12:44, 2 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I have sent an email to a flickr user to see if we can use his photo. If that doesn't work, [7] are some other choices we have. User:Zscout370 ^{(Return Fire)} 06:46, 2 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

If I remember correctly, some of our self-important copyright "specialists" claim that there is no "freedom of panorama" in Belarus. There is a whole bunch of possibilities that stem from that. One is that this claim is nonsense as much of what is said by Wikipedia/commons wannabe copyright lawyers. Another possibility is that the image is legal if uploaded not from within Belarus as BE-law does not forbid taking pictures and US law does not forbid publishing one's own pictures. Yet another possibility is that the image is free onwiki but not allowed in commons which does (or may one day) allow only free worldwide images. Yet another possibility, is that the "freedom of panorama" important stuff is non-circumventable but this instantly opens the possibility of Fairuse rationale as the 1969 image has zero commercial value on one hand but replaceable with another non-free image only. There are endless possibilities and endless number of commons "specialists" who would give their valuable opinions on this crucial issue. --Irpen 06:53, 2 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Since I do not want to fill Ghirla's talk page with mumbo jumbo, I put what I know about Belgian law concerning this on Irpen's talk page --Pan Gerwazy 10:22, 2 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sometime this summer (back in June), you made an edit suggesting that you would support reverting the article on the Russian Orthodox Church back to a 2006 version. I left a message on the Talk Page asking why but you never responded. Perhaps you never saw my message. In any event, would you mind reviewing the article and sharing with me your thoughts as to whether the quality of the article is degraded from 2006 and whether you still support reverting or if you think it can be fixed? Thanks. --Richard 09:02, 6 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Ghirlandajo, I am still in the old dispute over the House of Munsö with user:Pieter Kuiper. He wants to remove stuff, while I want to keep in things that I find interesting. Please, join the discussion and give your opinion.--Berig 16:07, 6 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hello. Many thanks for my newcomer award, much appreciated. Glad to see you've developed Nikolai Yevreinov too; I'd like to get around to more of the theatre people in Russia in that period. One thing, though: why the move to that spelling? I know the Russian names into English isn't straightforward, so I was wondering what your thinking was? DionysosProteus 22:23, 6 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Aha - hadn't seen that style page. I think, though, that it might be best to move back, as most of the published material I've encountered uses the E- spelling - have a search on Amazon, for example. I can't do this move myself as the page already exists. Is this something you can? Regards, DionysosProteus 20:08, 7 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Oh! That was simple! I thought because there was a redirect page already existing the Move wouldn't work. Thanks anyhow. I'm in the process of working through the Stanislavski-related pages at the moment, so might call on your expertise at some point, if that's alright. Thanks, DionysosProteus 20:13, 7 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I enjoyed your article on the Demidovs. I was reading about Karl von Hügel selling off his famous garden in 1848: most of the plants were sold to Anatole Demidov. I had no idea who this man was, and didn't expect there to be an article on him. Lo and behold, he is so famous as to have a chicken dish named after him! Hesperian 12:24, 7 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Greetings,

Unproven claims to age 110+ should be categorized as category: longevity claims. A category, category: Russian supercentenarians should only be used IF a case is based on proven/documented records that have been accepted by an established world authority, such as Guinness World Records or the Gerontology Research Group. Also, religious ideas about longevity, even if cited in newspapers, should not be presented as 'fact'. Claims that those in the Caucasian live longer have been debunked for 30+ years. No case has ever proven true.

If you would like to be pro-active, however, we would like to find out whatever happened to Maria Strelnikova. Note that since she came from extreme northwest Russia, where records kept were generally better, I do wonder if there are any documents to prove her age (or if/when she died).

Please discuss.

Sincerely Robert Young Ryoung122 00:57, 9 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I note that the initial Russian myth-debunking was by...a Russian!

http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,908667-1,00.html

The debunking of the Izumi case from Japan, likewise, came from the Japanese themselves (Suzuki et al). Thus what we have is not nationalism but 'science vs. mythology'. Myths are not just something that existed in the past; many people still believe them. The issue is whether we should continue the cycle of mis-information or finally live up to a standard of proof.

Note that the USA also had its own myths at the time, see Charlie Smith (centenarian) for more.

Finally, I left another note under 'Summer 2007' by accident instead of here.

Sincerely, Robert Young

Ryoung122 04:52, 10 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Ghirla, could you kindly check the Russian names in the Finnish_Orthodox_Church#Russian_Orthodox_Church_in_Finland, thanks. --Drieakko 06:20, 9 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Your objections are duly noted. The decision is, admittedly, a work in progress; if you believe that I've missed noting any of the habitualy incivil parties, please feel free to name them (and present the requisite evidence, obviously).

But I'm not sure if you realize that the ruling in the Piotrus case was intended as a final warning, not as mere idle chatter. The community of editors working on EE topics was told that their normal style of interaction was unacceptable. They have failed to improve it. And thus it has become necessary to use less gentle methods in order to bring this continual infighting to an end. Kirill 11:14, 9 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ghirla, I do hope that you and Irpen are not considering abandoning the project because of these ludicrously unjust and inflammatory proposals. Remember they are just that - proposals. Your amazing work here is proof of your value to the project, and hard as it may be I hope you will regard these proposals with a pinch of salt and not allow them to upset you. I'm sure no-one will seriously consider such disastrous and foolhardy sanctions against either you or Irpen. Giano 14:54, 9 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Second Giano, of course. The problem is that Petri Krohn now looks like the main, and perhaps only victim. In fact, we all know that (and how!) Digwuren will not be hindered by this ban at all. On the other hand, Ghirla, I would advise you to strike out the item about Irpen. I am glad you pointed that thing, so I could respond to it. Do you think there is a better place for me to put my comment? I understand why you want to keep that thing about yourself, though frankly, it doubt whether it could help - but the one about Irpen looks a bit silly. --Pan Gerwazy 15:03, 9 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You wrote on the discussion page of Sergius of Valaam, that there is text about this possible founder of Valaam monastery in the internet. Yes, but in Kyrillic text! Would you kindly translate some portions of it to us who don't know Russian? --Tellervo 17:09, 9 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your edit in Ogygia, regarding original research. I have removed the tagged text and replaced it. You might like to check and comment on it. Odysses (☜) 10:09, 10 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

During the FAC of Victoria Cross for Australia the validity of the copyright tag on Image:Malakhov2.jpg has been questioned. The author of the work died in 1928 and as such does not meet the requirements for +100 years. Could it be changed or updated? Although i have removed from the VC for OZ page, it would still be good to clear it up. Thanks. Woodym555 16:49, 10 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

		The 25 DYK Medal
		I noticed you didn't have the 25 DYK medal, so for a laugh I thought I'd give it you. Seriously though, you're a great wikipedian; it should be mandatory to look up to you. :) Cheers, Spawn Man 04:34, 11 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I know my place... but while I am poor, I am honest, industrious and trustworthy. Had I the inclination, I could look down on them. But I don't. -- !! ?? 09:51, 11 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Dear Ghirla. Thanks for your help and advice. I took your advice and have been sticking to content to see how it goes; it's worked, and I've decided finally not to leave wiki ... at least not for a while. Let me know if I can ever help you with anything. Best regards, Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 16:23, 11 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ciao, and sorry for the late answer, but I was (and, actually, I am still ;-)) on holidays. Of course I know this church! I visited it last spring, and I started to write an article about it in september. It should be ready by the end of October. I hope that it will appear on DYK, since the story of this small church is quite interesting. Cheers, Alex2006 13:46, 12 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ciao Ghirla, finally I did it ! Cheers, Alex2006 09:15, 15 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

		Ready to swab the decks!
		Another motley scallawag has joined the crew. Thanks for your comments at my RFA. Arrrgh! - - Jehochman Talk 05:18, 12 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry that I'm a bit late (due to the Toolserver replication lag), but I'm happy to congratulate you on this milestone. Good luck in further contributions! :) — Kalan ? 15:57, 14 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Ghirlandajo. If you could give a source for this image on commons; someone transfered it to commons, but it still doesn't have a source. It would be appreciated. Thanks. 64.178.96.168 17:58, 20 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I saw your comment on Talk:Loire Valley about Vandalism. I have just reverted some Vandalism there and I will be putting a link to this article on my User Page to monitor it. Kathleen.wright5 13:00, 21 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Посмотри фотографию, пожалуйста. Я так понимаю, ты её в ен-вики грузил. Может что скажешь? Представленного разрешения явно недостаточно. ~ kintup 21:02, 21 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This arbitration case has been closed and the final decision is available at the link above. Among the principles passed was At wit's end which states that necessary measures must be adopted by the Arbitration Committee in cases where repeated attempts to stop disruptive disputes have failed. As a result of the case, both Digwuren and Petri Krohn are banned for one year. There has also been a general restriction to all editors working on topis related to Eastern Europe and a warning to all those who may, in the future, attempt to use Wikipedia as a battleground that they may be banned when the matter is reported to the Committee. On behalf of the Arbitration Committee, Cbrown1023 talk 22:22, 21 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Andrej, you split this offMedici, but I wonder whether such a "Florentine" calendar existed. Were you too trusting? I noted my doubts at Talk:Florentine calendar. What do you think, looking at the article again? --Wetman 08:01, 25 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for uploading Image:EltonJohnElectricitySingleCover.jpg. However, there is a concern that the rationale you have provided for using this image under "fair use" may be invalid. Please read the instructions at Wikipedia:Non-free content carefully, then go to the image description page and clarify why you think the image qualifies for fair use. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to ensure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If it is determined that the image does not qualify under fair use, it will be deleted within a couple of days according to our criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the media copyright questions page. Thank you.BetacommandBot 02:40, 26 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• I have written the rationale Alex Bakharev 03:04, 26 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Andrey, would you look at my start on this interesting gent and correct any gaffes I've committed? There's surely a Russian wiki, yes?. --Wetman 17:49, 26 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hey, Ghirla! A Swedish revisionist tries portray the Battle of Lesnaya (which the majority of sources calls a crushing defeat of the Swedes) as a draw. Some other moron has frozen the article. Could you please help in the discussion? Thank you. Voyevoda 22:35, 29 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Здравствуйте. Проверьте, пожалуйста, почту. ru.Media 16:08, 1 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Russia is currently a featured article candidate. Please feel free to leave comments here.--Miyokan 11:54, 5 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Mr Ghirlandajo, can you take a look at this article which i translated yesterday from the German Wikipedia? I tried to change its name to Rumyantsev Museum and than i found out the name is already in use. Can you integrage this two, improve mine or change the redirect to your article? What would be the best? Taksen 09:03, 9 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hello. I'm gathering material together to create a little article on the Maly Theatre, Moscow, and I'm a little confused, so I wondered whether you might have a little time to help me clear something up? I don't speak/read Russian, which is probably where I'm going wrong. My draft scribblings are here.

I'm confused about when the theatre was created. I realise there was a company first, then the building came later. But when was the company set up?

The babel-fish translation of the Maly's own history page on their website seems to imply it was the Imperial decree in 1756 that founded the company, along with Moscow Uni (although the Wikipedia article for the uni says 1755, so that's odd), as does a Russian news-page saying they're celebrating 250yr anniversary. However, all the sources in books in English that I can find - Cambridge Guide to Theatre, Oxford Companion to Theatre say it was founded in 1805 or 1806. The new page about celebrating anniversary says it's the oldest professional theatre in Russia, but the actors were students at the Uni, which suggests amateur. Brockett's History of Theatre says 1805 when the crown purchased 74 serf actors; so I don't get how the students and serfs could be one company. I realise that all the theatres came under control of the government then, but it's a bit unclear how this worked. Then they got a building in 1824 (on this, the sources agree). From then on, it becomes first the House of Shchepkin then the House of Ostrovsky, and the sources settle down and start to agree with one another.

I'm leaving this note on Miyokan's page too. If you have time to look at it for me, I'd be grateful. The web sources in Russian are here:

• Russian Wikipedia article (in Russian)
• the Maly Theatre's website (in Russian)
• Maly celebrates anniversary
• Russian theatre history chronology

Many thanks, DionysosProteus 14:05, 9 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, I noticed that you uploaded the 19th century picture of the Kazan Cathedral. I'm wondering if you perhaps know the source of it; I would like to be able to cite the original source. Can you please reply to my discussion page?

Thanks much, Sir Pimpernel 02:03, 11 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, can you please shed some light on the relation between the two and if indeed it was the same person? Thanks

StevanMD 13:40, 12 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for uploading Image:Volotsk.jpg. I noticed the 'image' page specifies that the image is being used under fair use, but its use in Wikipedia articles fails our first fair use criterion in that it illustrates a subject for which a freely licensed image could reasonably be found or created that provides substantially the same information. If you believe this image is not replaceable, please:

1. Go to the image description page and edit it to add {{di-replaceable fair use disputed}}, without deleting the original Replaceable fair use template.
2. On the image discussion page, write the reason why this image is not replaceable at all.

Alternatively, you can also choose to replace the fair use image by finding a freely licensed image of its subject, requesting that the copyright holder release this (or a similar) image under a free license, or by taking a picture of it yourself.

If you have uploaded other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified how these images fully satisfy our fair use criteria. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on this link. Note that even if you follow steps 1 and 2 above, fair use images which could be replaced by free-licensed alternatives will be deleted 2 days after this notification (7 days if not used in an article), per our Fair Use policy. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. —Remember the dot ^(talk) 02:48, 17 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

As you have shown interest for Central Asian topics, for your information, the FA article on the Indo-Greek kingdom is under FA review. You may leave comments and vote at Wikipedia:Featured article review/Indo-Greek Kingdom. PHG (talk) 18:24, 18 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Can you think of anything to add here - we don't have very good coverage! Johnbod (talk) 23:56, 19 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Where's the source for this? As I understand, photos of sculptures are not necessarily in the public-domain by default. -- VegitaU (talk) 01:09, 28 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Гирландайо, несравненный %) вы не включите её в свой список наблюдения? А то там часто по-мелкому правят анонимы, а я, во-первых, не очень часто сюда заглядываю, а во-вторых, не настолько владею языком, чтобы оценить стилистические тонкости в акцентах, которые смещаются пристрастными товарищами. --Shakko kitsune 12:14, 1 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Halo I write article Sveneld in Polish wiki. I have question: from where (title article or book) originate, Gumilev theory about Sveneld?--Polelum 15:27, 1 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for uploading Image:Apollo&daphne.jpg. However, it currently is missing information on its copyright status. Wikipedia takes copyright very seriously. It may be deleted soon, unless we can determine the license and the source of the image. If you know this information, then you can add a copyright tag to the image description page.

If you have any questions, please feel free to ask them at the media copyright questions page. Thanks again for your cooperation. VegitaU (talk) 00:10, 6 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for uploading Image:Apollo&daphne.jpg. I noticed that the file's description page currently doesn't specify who created the content, so the copyright status is unclear. If you did not create this file yourself, you will need to specify the owner of the copyright. If you obtained it from a website, then a link to the website from which it was taken, together with a restatement of that website's terms of use of its content, is usually sufficient information. However, if the copyright holder is different from the website's publisher, their copyright should also be acknowledged.

As well as adding the source, please add a proper copyright licensing tag if the file doesn't have one already. If you created/took the picture, audio, or video then the {{GFDL-self}} tag can be used to release it under the GFDL. If you believe the media meets the criteria at Wikipedia:Non-free content, use a tag such as {{non-free fair use in|article name}} or one of the other tags listed at Wikipedia:Image copyright tags#Fair use. See Wikipedia:Image copyright tags for the full list of copyright tags that you can use.

If you have uploaded other files, consider checking that you have specified their source and tagged them, too. You can find a list of files you have uploaded by following this link. Unsourced and untagged images may be deleted one week after they have been tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If the image is copyrighted under a non-free license (per Wikipedia:Fair use) then the image will be deleted 48 hours after 00:10, 6 December 2007 (UTC). If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. VegitaU (talk) 00:10, 6 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Dear Ghirla, we miss you here! Your vast diamond-quality contributions, your principled stand against various cranks and cooks, you felicitous remarks at various boards helped in forming the Wikipedia what it has become. I understand that you left due to stress and you would have been back if you were over it. So, I am not trying to rush you. Please take all the time you need to forget the stressful part but do come back when you are ready. Hope this will happen sooner... --Irpen 03:45, 6 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Well... :D I cant say I will join in on the I wait you back thing... It has been quiet past few months. But I do hope life treats you nice wherever you are. :D --Alexia Death the Grey (talk) 09:20, 7 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]