Welcome!

Hello, and welcome to Wikipedia. Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are a few good links for newcomers:

• How to edit a page
• Editing, policy, conduct, and structure tutorial
• Picture tutorial
• How to write a great article
• Naming conventions
• Manual of Style
• The Five Pillars of Wikipedia
• Merging, redirecting, and renaming pages
• If you're ready for the complete list of Wikipedia documentation, there's also Wikipedia:Topical index.

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! By the way, you can sign your name on Talk and vote pages using three tildes, like this: ~~~. Four tildes (~~~~) produces your name and the current date. If you have any questions, see the help pages, add a question to the village pump or ask me on my Talk page. Again, welcome! -- Francs2000 | Talk 02:00, 25 Jun 2005 (UTC)

The images you have recently uploaded are really good. Thank you. Sashazlv 04:32, 5 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your contributions. I am not sure, this was brought up to your attention, but please keep an eye on the announcement boards of Russia portal and Ukraine portal. Also, may I ask you to reformulate the statement on your user page to a more soft version. We really don't need to inflame our colleagues. Apologies if my advice is unwelcome. Hope to see you around. --Irpen 18:55, 21 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Hi again, are you sure there are no other one-sided views of history maintained by others in WP. Sorry again, but we should really engage our friends and neighbors into cooperation whenever possible. Please drop me a note or an email via "E-mail this user" if you want to discuss this. Thanks and please take my comments lightly. --Irpen 00:06, 22 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the great pic. However, please take a look at the note I left at Talk:Ukrainians. If I may make a suggestion regarding a person for the picture from the Soviet time, I would suggest Sergey Korolyov. What do you think? --Irpen 02:41, 5 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Done already. Let me know if you disagree or you would like an old picture (I saved it on my hard-drive). --Irpen 03:11, 5 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Do you have a reference for your modified causality figures?

Yes, http://www.algonet.se/~hogman/battles_1700b_eng.htm

Hello. I think you may be interested to check what's going on with St_Volodymyr's_Cathedral and Smolensk. Please help to keep the nationalists at bay. --Ghirlandajo 12:54, 26 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with your view on nationalists. Good work! Antidote 20:31, 28 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• Check a new attack by user:Molobo. His contributions should be constantly scrutinized, as you will never know where he strikes again. --Ghirlandajo 09:33, 10 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

If you have had troubles with user:Molobo, please add the summary of his abuses to my note here. I believe we should stand united against his nationalist spree. Thanks, Ghirlandajo 14:31, 18 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I would like to express my thanks to all the people who took part in my (failed) RfA voting. I was both surprised and delighted about the amount of support votes and all the kind words! I was also surprised by the amount of people who stated clearly that they do care, be it by voting in for or against my candidacy. That's what Wiki community is about and I'm really pleased to see that it works.
As my RfA voting failed with 71% support, I don't plan to reapply for adminship any more. However, I hope I might still be of some help to the community. Cheers! Halibutt 05:10, 29 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Take a look. It seems there that the raging russophobia of some is the only reason of the attempts to derail the candidacy of one of the most worthy people for the job. His unquestionably high ethics and decensy are so clear even from how he handles the criticism and shameless attacks at his own RfAdm even for those who don't know him from his contributions to Wikipedia! --Irpen 19:22, 10 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I would like to express my thanks to all the good people who spent their valuable time time and effort working on my (failed) RfA voting. Especially for those who actually voted to support me :). Lets move on and make together our Wikipedia an even greater place abakharev 10:00, 12 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Please add the page to your watchlist. I'm tired of fighting such edits alone. --Ghirla | talk 09:54, 20 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I was not referring to your edits. See User_talk:Thames. Please don't delete pertinent Bilibin's image though. --Ghirla | talk 12:55, 20 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I requested Vorša to be moved to Orsha. Please vote on Talk:Vorša. --Ghirla | talk 11:16, 23 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hi there. Although I mentioned the battle in my previous article on Vorotynsky, I'll write something more substantial on the subject in a day or two. Cheers, Ghirla | talk 00:27, 28 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Please refrain from undoing other people's edits repeatedly. If you continue, you may be blocked from editing Wikipedia under the three-revert rule, which states that nobody may revert an article to a previous version more than three times in 24 hours. (Note: this also means editing the page to reinsert an old edit. If the effect of your actions is to revert back, it qualifies as a revert.) Thank you. Alai 02:04, 30 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

Привет, I'm also interested in Central and Eastern European history and politics. And I also agree that many Westernized Poles try to sell out other East Europeans by pretending that they are somehow "better" than them. In Asia, you see South Korea being the exact same. By the way, could you help help with the page on the Constitution of the Russian Federation or the page I wrote Buddhism in the Russian Federation? User:Le Anh-Huy

Hi. You voted in support of Alex Bakharev his previous RfA, and I just wanted to let you know that there's a second one at Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Alex Bakharev 2. --Khoikhoi 03:11, 21 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Too late, Voyevoda. But, good news, he was promoted anyway. Cheers, --Irpen 01:23, 24 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, thanks for your voting on my RFA. It has finished with the result 88/14/9, and I am promoted. I am really overwhelmed with the amount of support I have got. With some of you we have edited many articles as a team, with some I had bitter arguments in the past, some of you I consider to be living legends of Wikipedia and some nicks I in my ignorance never heard before. I love you all and I am really grateful to you.

If you feel I can help you or Wikipedia as a human, as an editor or with my newly acquired cleaning tools, then just ask and I will be happy to assist. If you will feel that I do not live up to your expectation and renegade on my promises, please contact me. Maybe it was not a malice but just ignorance or a short temper. Thank you very much, once more! abakharev 07:34, 24 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for uploading Image:Vorontsova-Dashkova.jpg. The image has been identified as not specifying the source and creator of the image, which is required by Wikipedia's policy on images. If you don't indicate the source and creator of the image on the image's description page, it may be deleted some time in the next seven days. If you have uploaded other images, please verify that you have provided source information for them as well.

For more information on using images, see the following pages:

• Wikipedia:Image use policy
• Wikipedia:Image copyright tags

This is an automated notice by OrphanBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. 21:08, 14 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I provided the info , they requested abakharev 21:47, 14 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

An image or media file that you uploaded or altered has been listed at Wikipedia:Images and media for deletion/2006 August 20. Please look there to see why this is (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry), if you are interested in it not being deleted. Thank you. Kwame Nkrumah 16:56, 20 August 2006 (UTC)

Здравствуйте! Скажіте, это Вы проголосовалі на Мете протів беларусской Вікі? Может, можно поговоріть об этом в ICQ\Jabber? 300237142\ihar.hrachyshka@gmail.com

Hi Voyevoda!

Please see my comment on this page. Thanks.

I'm not sure whether you are aware, but some blatant vandalism was committed under your name. You seem to be an active editor, so I doubt it was you personally who did it. Just wanted to let you know, mate.

--Tarranon 08:04, 20 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

--Berkut 05:28, 6 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I believe some of these statements need sourcing. Otherwise, the nationalists will obliterate these stubborn facts. --Ghirla ^-трёп- 12:17, 6 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

On 20 November, 2006, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Muscovite-Lithuanian Wars, which you created. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the "Did you know?" talk page.

--GeeJo ^(t)⁄_(c) • 16:49, 20 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Francis Tyers · 09:01, 19 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hello

The first sight shows that information about one bilion lose for Poland is completely fictious. How big is present income of Poland from transit of Russian gas?(or rather income of the Europol Gas company)? Are there any plans to cut transit of gas through Poland after completion of the Northern Stream? I don't think personally - both pipelines will be used. How one can calculate any lose of transit fees?

Moreover, for Poland the transit fees have minor meaning (major for Gudzowaty, owner of Europolgas). I suppose the country that is affected the most is Belarus. Cautious 10:00, 2 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for uploading Image:Juri Gagarin.jpg. The image has been identified as not specifying the source and creator of the image, which is required by Wikipedia's policy on images. If you don't indicate the source and creator of the image on the image's description page, it may be deleted some time in the next seven days. If you have uploaded other images, please verify that you have provided source information for them as well.

For more information on using images, see the following pages:

• Wikipedia:Image use policy
• Wikipedia:Image copyright tags

This is an automated notice by OrphanBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. 12:07, 12 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Всё же нужно дать точные источники для каждого изображения, а то в соот.статьях используются несколько другие. Пример, как это лучше сделать можно подглядеть здесь Image:Native Hawaiians.PNG. Либо, если что-то всё же утеряно, то можно переделать, благо свободные есть. Alex Spade 18:26, 8 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I am not sure what is going on here but I am going to ask that the reverts to the flag box stop. I am an American so I am very sure I don't understand the fine context of the argument you have with the German fellow behind the IP address. I very much want to understand what the issue is. I actually have contributed 95% of the text in the article to this date. Where it was Polish troops they get credit, where Russian the same, and so forth. I have no nationial axe to grind, to my knowledge there were no U.S. troops within 3,000 miles of the battlefield. The British had at best 1 rocket battery there (assuming that speaking English would have some positive effect on me and it doesn't) so I have been very careful that each nation gets credit for what it's units there did. A flag box is a silly thing to get in a revert war on. Please list what your issues are with the flag box in the Battle of Leipzig talk page so we can get this addressed.

I am asking that you not revert or change the flag box further at this time until we can get agreement from the various parties. This is looking like a pro-national POV to me. This isn't good for the article or Wikipedia. Tirronan 18:18, 14 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Despite my requests you have continued to play the flag reordering game on Battle of Leipzig this is your last notice ANYMORE OF THIS AND I WILL BE REPORTING YOUR CONTINUED AND DISRUPTIVE BEHAVIOR TO THE ADMINS! I don't like nor will I stand for this "my nation over all stuff" I am reverting back to the start of all this and I don't want to see another change by you on Battle of Leipzig again. Tirronan 16:15, 25 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I will interfer if I see any more of this stuff, it is silly and I have had enough. Stop with the flag waving, I'm an American and I don't have a side in this. Anymore and you will be talking to an admin next. Tirronan 17:14, 25 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I've asked for mediation on this and I will accept the admin's decision please accept the request when you are invited to do so. I don't want to deal with all the complaints that your edits are bringing. Tirronan 17:37, 25 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sign up here http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Requests_for_mediation/Battle_of_Leipzig

Thank you, I am more than willing to abide by whatever they decide and best of luck on your end of things. Tirronan 20:37, 25 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Well since we have been turned down and this is a fairly simple issue shall we simply poll the editors and let the majority decide? This constant edit war has to stop one way or another. Tirronan 13:46, 26 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

A Request for Mediation to which you are a party was not accepted and has been delisted. You can find more information on the mediation subpage, Wikipedia:Requests for mediation/Battle of Leipzig. For the Mediation Committee, ^demon[omg plz] This message delivered by MediationBot, an automated bot account operated by the Mediation Committee to perform case management. If you have questions about this bot, please contact the Mediation Committee directly.

You have been blocked for a period of twenty-four hours for violating the three-revert rule at Kiev Expedition (1018). To contest this block, please reply here on your talk page by adding the text {{unblock|your reason here}} along with the reason you believe the block is unjustified, or email the blocking administrator or any administrator from this list. -- tariqabjotu 23:37, 4 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hello. I noticed that you altered the image that is currently being used in the infobox template. I'd like to remind you that there is a talk page where this change should have been discussed beforehand (you would also notice that there is currently a discussion taking place to potentially create a new montage with different images). You might want to voice your opinions there. The section specifically is Template_talk:WW2InfoBox#Discussion. Regards, Parsecboy (talk) 05:06, 10 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Voevoda.Are u the same person with the "Voevoda" in commons?

If yes; I wanted to translate your map "Crimean Khanate 1600" into Turkish and upload it to Turkish Wiki, but I wasn't sure about some facts.Firstly, what does "Ulus of Gazi" you wrote mean?I have thought these lands were Crimean Khanate's.And what about Grand Nogia Horde? Did Muscovy had borders in that south in 1600?

Thanks in advance.--Jagatai Khan (talk) 10:53, 18 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hello. Is it really my map? I can't remember. The only thing I can remember is that I wrote a Russian version of Battle of Molodi and translated the map into Russian after having taken it from somewhere. The Russian version is uploaded on the Commons here. As you can see, there is no Ulus of Gazi in it yet. It must have been another person who worked on those maps after me. Sorry if I couldn't help you. --Voyevoda (talk) 17:36, 18 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Your article is a copy-paste of my earlier article - [1]. We have a move button to rename a page, please, respect GFDL copyright (history button). If you really want to move the contents of a page instead of renaming a page, please, fill in the edit summary entry properly. I undid your revisions. --Yuriy Lapitskiy ~ 07:43, 17 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Voyevoda! I'd like to call your attention to the WikiProject Germany and the German-speaking Wikipedians' notice board. I hope their links, sub-projects and discussions are interesting and even helpful to you. If not, I hope that new ones will be. Wikipedia:WikiProject Germany | watch Wikipedia:German-speaking Wikipedians' notice board | watch

--Zeitgespenst (talk) 22:08, 10 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

These reverts at Battle of Konotop have to stop, this is getting tedious. Everything has been explained at talk. I didn't notice any of your objections. I only removed data supplied by Russian journalists, which is contrary to WP:V and I said so at talk, you didn't object. Besides, it appears that you are reverting pages without any regard for the content as you removed new links that I provided. There is a discussion going on between me and User:Irpen at talk, why don't you participate and instead wage revert wars? Do you want me to start mediation to settle this or you prefer to revert pages whenever you happen to like? I am still waiting for your objections not your reverts. --Hillock65 (talk) 17:56, 29 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The vandal who has been changing numbers shows no sign of stopping and he has changed the numbers in articles where you have added real sources, if you could revert him then if he continues we could report him from breaching 3rr Shipseggsbasket (talk) 19:44, 31 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It was Sweden who won the Russo–Swedish War (1656–1658). Why did you change that? That is called vandalism. --212.247.27.189 (talk) 14:18, 13 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The Russians conquered more lands and while the peace treaty was signed, they held them. So it can't be a Swedish victory. Sweden could just almost restore the pre-war situation. Voyevoda (talk) 14:40, 13 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Good evening.
I`v noticed here that you changed name from Daniel Ostrogski to Daniil Ostrogski and i belive that you, as a native Russian speaker, are right. My question is how should be pronounced in Ruthenian/Russian name Elżbieta (Elisabeth), is Halzbieta/Halszka correct form? And if it goes for Danill, isn`t Danylko olso right? I`m quite newcomer in wiki and i would olso like to know if chane of page name for wikiarticle is possible.
Thanks in advance.
Mikołajski (talk) 22:54, 29 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hello! The Ruthenian form of Elżbieta is Elizaveta and the diminuitive form is Liza. You can change the article name by clicking the "move" button just right of "history". Greetings, Voyevoda (talk) 06:23, 30 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks alot, but name Halszka seems to be in various sources also used, is it another name or maybe another language (for example old-Russian)? I feel confused with that names issues, especially Dniil had about four different names in different sources (Daszko, Detko etc.) as well as Feodor. How about that Danylko, is it diminuitive form of Daniil? Another thing i wish to ask is what`s wikipedia policy about such things like names and how can i redirect various names to one correct (i hope) page. Unfortunatelly i`v got no "move" button, is it question of my accounts set-up?
P.S. Please, if you can reply on my talk page, it would be easier for me to notice your answers.

Regards.Mikołajski (talk) 18:42, 30 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks again. May it be that Halszka was just Latinised/Polonised name, anyway i`v got finally that "move" button and i`ll just redirect Elżbieta/Halszka to "Elizaveta" and similar with others. If it goes for "Detko", i found it in many sources, exactly Det`ko, similar with Feodor and Fed`ko. If i can i wish you to tell me if Feodor (Fiodor/Teodor) and Ilia (Eliasz/Elias) are correct names. Mikołajski (talk) 00:47, 2 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I stand corrected. Semper malus (talk) 19:19, 8 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. I know of course that there is a tag team on the Wikipedia project which is so enamoured of Napoleon Bonaparte, who in my combined Belgian-German POV is just a French 19th century version of Joseph Stalin, that they want to turn all the battles he ever fought into stunning victories (the same IP numbers appear on wikipedias in different languages). I was astonished to see there was also a tag team which wants to turn all Swedish battles against Russia into Swedish victories - I have no idea how many members that team has, probably not so many as one of them turned out to have at least four sockpuppets.

However, that should not mean the other side should blindlly revert. POV pushing by seemingly ignorant users should be the ideal occasion to properly source what you claim. And before you start revert warring, always try to find a compromise solution text which would, according to your POV, mean you are right and they are wrong. I once deblocked an entire discussion at Dutch Wikipedia about Erika Steinbach by dropping the word "Polish" from the description of her village of birth. I did that because I suddenly thought "why, no one in his real mind would think it was anything but Polish at that time, sure". Some time later, the guy who had fought me tooth and nail over that precise sentence reverted a change by a German new user to my version. And that was an ugly situation, by the way - someone actually called me a Polish communist vandal.

We are almost at that stage in the article now. I reverted to your version (and started copy editing from that) because the other guy added the Polish name of that place in an obvious attempt to widen the edit war. But do not take that as a 100% support. The problem at that article is that both sides are adding and deleting text saying their work is sourced, while no neutral observer can establish what is verifiable, WP:SYNTH or just lies. I am a bit at a disadvantage here, because my Russian is much better than my Swedish. Please, before changing anything, quote the source (yes, in Russian) that you are using on that on the talk page, provide an English translation, and give the exact edition and page number. We can then introduce inline references, which would not only improve the article, but even the look of the article. Ogromnoe spasibo for reading all this rant.--Paul Pieniezny (talk) 11:31, 24 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Paul! I really appreciate wise and balanced Wikipedia users like you. I've added the more exact source information in the article. You can download the text of the book from here: http://files.zipsites.ru/slovari/100velikih/100_velikih_bitv.rar. However, it is a text file which does not keep the original layout and is thus not easy to read. You should open it with your browser and switch the encoding to Cyrillic. Here is a little excerpt from page 222:

Обнаружив утром покинутый вагенбург, Петр I бросил в погоню драгун генерал-лейтенанта Пфлуга. Корволант же стоял на месте битвы три дня. 29 сентября Пфлуг настиг и порубил в Пропойске до полутысячи отставших и взял остатки обоза, правда, без военного снаряжения — порох и заряды Левенгаупт успел утопить в Соже. Потери шведов убитыми и ранеными составляли 6397 человек, из них 45 офицеров, около 700 солдат попали в плен. Русские потеряли 1111 человек убитыми и 2856 ранеными. Победа под Лесной не была полной — были упущены часть трофеев и половина корпуса Левенгаупта. Voyevoda (talk) 15:09, 24 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Неужели увидели. Yes, I will post that on the talk page myself. Forget what I said when I corrected my "typo" in the info box. Let us hope that we can get also get the Swedish source there and that Nikitn tells us where he got his slightly different figures (well, I say slightly different now, as I haven't checked yours closely against his yet). I noticed already that the number 16,000 for Russian combatants seems to come from Lewenhaupt's diary and was supposedly based on the story of a Russian adjutant General taken prisoner just before the battle (Ruswiki has that story, but there is no alternative source there, so I hope Lewenhaupt's diary does not qualify as a primary source - even though we would only be using it to explain how a controversy over the number of Russians arose). Nikitn's Swedish figures are interesting, because they are compatible with the claim some Swedes escaped to Riga, so there is compromise possible there. --Paul Pieniezny (talk) 16:11, 24 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I was able to read that text file from the rar file, but I have a problem: I get no paragraphs or page ends. Is there a better version of this? Please continue to follow that page. Nikitn has not shown up, may be he is really a trouble maker? Dakuyu, or however they say that in Ruthenian ... --Paul Pieniezny (talk) 16:01, 26 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hello! I'm sorry for my big lack of time. Thank you for your efforts. Unfortunately there are no other versions of this book online. The page numbers are there, if you look more detailly. Voyevoda (talk) 20:45, 26 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

А зачем давать греческое и латинское имена Руси? Почему бы, например, не добавить арабское? Полагаю, следует ограничиться местным языком (древнерусским) и современными языками-преемниками (белорусским, русским, украинским). Латинское и греческое наименования можно упомянуть в тексте статьи, но во введении, я полагаю, им не место. Там и так всё сильно перегружено. Hellerick (talk) 12:10, 9 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 24 hours to prevent further disruption caused by your engagement in an edit war at Battle of Konotop. During a dispute, you should first try to discuss controversial changes and seek consensus. If that proves unsuccessful you are encouraged to seek dispute resolution, and in some cases it may be appropriate to request page protection. If you believe this block is unjustified, you may contest the block by adding the text {{unblock|your reason here}} below. \ Backslash Forwardslash / (talk) 01:22, 17 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for experimenting with Wikipedia. Your test worked, and the page that you created has been or soon will be deleted. Please use the sandbox for any other tests you want to do. Take a look at the welcome page if you would like to learn more about contributing to our encyclopedia. You may also wish to consider using a Wizard to help you create articles - see the Article Wizard.

If you think that this notice was placed here in error, you may contest the deletion by adding {{hangon}} to the top of the page that has been nominated for deletion (just below the existing speedy deletion or "db" tag), coupled with adding a note on the talk page explaining your position, but be aware that once tagged for speedy deletion, if the page meets the criterion it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but don't hesitate to add information to the page that would render it more in conformance with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Lastly, please note that if the page does get deleted, you can contact one of these admins to request that they userfy the page or have a copy emailed to you. ttonyb (talk) 05:43, 4 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I am disappointed that fresh from a block for edit warring you continue to revert without even making an effort to enter into dicussion about problems of the article. This is leading nowhere, trust me. Even all you buddies from the Russian Wikipedia, whom you've been rallying up to help here cannot help. This is English Wikipedia, you seemply cannot force your way and will have to compromise sooner of later. Revert war is leading to yet another block. There is better way to settle differences. --Hillock65 (talk) 06:05, 4 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hehe, I'm accused of rallying up by someone who is involved in dubious anti-Russian mailing list. Wonderful! I've tried to settle down things in discussion, my position is even more a compromise than yours because I advocate the presentation of ANY information and want to leave it up to the reader to decide whom to trust. It's you who prefers to ignore the discussion. So please stop distorting what is going on. --Voyevoda (talk) 06:12, 4 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You are on the record of asking assistance from users User:Henrich, User:Ghirlandajo,User:Amigovip to come to help you wage revert war in the article Battle of Konotop. I have already informed admins about this. As well you just did you 4th revert in that article again. You obviously cannot learn from your own mistakes. Too bad. --Hillock65 (talk) 06:22, 4 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I see, you prefer threatening rather than discussing the topic of the article. What to the edit war, you are just as participant of it as I am. Wonderful that you're ignoring everything else I said. --Voyevoda (talk) 06:26, 4 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Could you please show me where you informed the admins? It's not visible here. Or is it just one more of your rallying up and hidden manipulation actions? --Voyevoda (talk) 06:27, 4 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You have been blocked from editing for a short time for your disruption caused by edit warring and violation of the three-revert rule. During a dispute, you should first try to discuss controversial changes and seek consensus. If that proves unsuccessful you are encouraged to seek dispute resolution, and in some cases it may be appropriate to request page protection. If you believe this block is unjustified, you may contest the block by adding the text {{unblock|Your reason here}} below, but you should read our guide to appealing blocks first.

  Will Beback  talk  08:54, 4 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

On advice and with further consideration, I think it's best to simply lock the article rather than handing out individual blocks. Edit warring is never fruitful. Please work towards consensus on the talk page. The article should reflect all sides of the issue in a neutral fashion. Though I'm lifting this block, please don't edit war any further as another block would result.   Will Beback  talk  09:59, 4 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 1 week for your disruption caused by edit warring and violation of the three-revert rule at Battle of Konotop. During a dispute, you should first try to discuss controversial changes and seek consensus. If that proves unsuccessful you are encouraged to seek dispute resolution, and in some cases it may be appropriate to request page protection. If you believe this block is unjustified, you may contest the block by adding the text {{unblock|Your reason here}} below, but you should read our guide to appealing blocks first. tedder (talk) 02:57, 1 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy).

Voyevoda (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

---

Request reason:

Please, evaluate my behaviour in the discussion of Battle of Konotop, as well as the contribution of my opponents such as User:Galassi who reverts everything without discussion or arguments. I'm convinced that it is not me who acts desruptively. I react on groundless edits and always try to justify them as well as to explain the opponent that he has to start participating in the discussion. As for 3RR I will try not to pay attention for the time span in future.

Decline reason:

Per WP:NOTTHEM and comment below. — Daniel Case (talk) 14:22, 1 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

---

If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.

Reacting to another user isn't an excuse to edit war over an article. You've been warned and blocked about this in the past. Simply paying attention to the specific time span of edits isn't sufficient. tedder (talk) 03:43, 1 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the new interesting article, please consider nominating it at T:TDYK for front page exposure. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 03:24, 9 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. I've made a nomination. --Voyevoda (talk) 22:36, 10 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hello! Your submission of Siege of Hlukhiv at the Did You Know nominations page has been reviewed, and there still are some issues that may need to be clarified. Please review the comment(s) underneath your nomination's entry and respond there as soon as possible. Thank you for contributing to Did You Know! Materialscientist (talk) 06:14, 15 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

On November 16, 2009, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Siege of Hlukhiv, which you created or substantially expanded. You are welcome to check how many hits your article got while on the front page (here's how) and add it to DYKSTATS if it got over 5,000. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

— Jake Wartenberg 13:21, 16 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

When you edit Battle of Konotop (or in fact any other potentially contentious article, for that matter), please always add clear, informative edit summaries about what you are changing. Note that in the case of the Battle of Konotop article, this is part of the special ground rules for editing that were agreed on some weeks ago. Failure to observe these may lead to blocking. Fut.Perf. ☼ 16:31, 7 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Novgorod Republic was a fief of Polish Crown 1389-1392 and 1401-1412 and it`s historically sourced fact. Mathiasrex (talk) 13:27, 28 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

So what? The timespan and the role of Poland in Novgorod's history is to insignificant to emphasize it the way you do. The map where only a small part of Novgorod lands is shown on the edge is totally unsuitable. The article is about Novgorod, not the PLC, dude. Please stop showing you inferiority complex putting Poland in the spotlight everywhere it is justified and not. --Voyevoda (talk) 16:49, 28 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Similarly, you should`nt show maps of the Grand Duchy of Moscow because (to 1480) it was only part of the Mongol Empire. Stop show your Russian inferiority complex, altering history and blur the truth wherever possible. Mathiasrex (talk) 17:49, 28 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Moscow was never part of the Mongol Empire, dude. It just had to pay tribute. Please don't talk about things you don't have an idea about. And if the article is abpout Grand Duchy of Moscow, it should be in the center of the map, just like Novgorod in the article about Novgorod. Obviously, you have problems with logic and parallels. --Voyevoda (talk) 18:17, 28 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Talk about important facts, please. The Treaty of Hadiach was signed by representatives of the Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth and the Cossack Hetmanate in 1658, and ratified by the Diet, in the presence of the Ukrainian delegation led by Yuri Nemyrych, in 1659. So, the Duchy of Ruthenia within the Polish-Lithuanian-Ruthenian Commonwealth was established. As a matter of fact, Russian military occupation of Kiev was illegal. I am afraid that you do not understand the principles of international law. Fortunately, I know a lot of sources, not only Russian or post-Soviet ones. -- dr Mibelz (talk) 23:23, 21 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Because of the recent bout of revert-warring at History of Kiev, you have been blocked for 2 weeks. In addition, under the discretionary sanctions rule of WP:DIGWUREN, I am imposing a revert limitation: you are not allowed to make more than 1 revert per week on any one page for the next 6 months. Additionally, any such revert must be preceded by a talk page post explaining your reasons, and a four-hour waiting period between the talk page edit and the actual revert, to allow for discussion. Fut.Perf. ☼ 13:15, 22 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I've reverted your removal of the president of Kosovo from the list of dignitaries as you neither left and edit summary nor discussed it on the talk page as I had previously requested in the edit log. I will start a discussion on the article's talk page - please comment there before removing again. I've also brought your editing to the attention of User:Future Perfect at Sunrise as you've broken the restrictions you were placed under above. Dpmuk (talk) 13:11, 25 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Since you have persistently ignored the revert limitation I gave you in March, and have continued revert-warring on multiple articles, I have blocked you again for three months. The revert limitation, under the same terms as explained above, will begin again for another six months from the day this block expires. If you break it again, you will be blocked indefinitely. Fut.Perf. ☼ 13:23, 25 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Your block has been reset for another four months, for socking with Kievlyanin (talk · contribs). Fut.Perf. ☼ 15:34, 26 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

...you've suggested SeikoEn check is I'm sure an educating read, but unfortunately it's linked to a wrong page. --Garik 11 (talk) 12:20, 15 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks a lot! I've corrected the link there. --Voyevoda (talk) 12:47, 15 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hi! It seems you recently created an unreferenced biography of a living person: Elena Yakovleva. The community has decided that all new biographies of living persons must contain a reliable source that supports at least one statement made about the person in the article as per our verifiability policy. Please add references as soon as possible. Thanks! --LaraBot (talk) 00:10, 7 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The article Elena Yakovleva has been proposed for deletion because under Wikipedia policy, all biographies of living persons created after March 18, 2010, must have at least one source that directly supports material in the article.

If you created the article, please don't take offense. Instead, consider improving the article. For help on inserting references, see Wikipedia:Referencing for beginners or ask at Wikipedia:Help desk. Once you have provided at least one reliable source, you may remove the {{prod blp}} tag. Please do not remove the tag unless the article is sourced. If you cannot provide such a source within ten days, the article may be deleted, but you can request that it be undeleted when you are ready to add one. Logan _Talk ^{Contributions} 04:18, 9 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hello! If the edit war on the article about Alexander III continues, I think it is better to avoid WP:3RR and instead address some admin and ask to semi-protect the article fixed on a version that passess NPOV. By the way, I was going to ask you to join Wikipedia:WikiProject Russia/History of Russia task force, where you could find the list of articles which need more work on them. Also, you may be interested in other Russian task forces, see the full list on WP:RUSSIA main page. GreyHood ^Talk 01:51, 14 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

For renewed revert-warring on Battle of Konotop, I am indefinitely topic-banning you from that article under the provisions of the WP:DIGWUREN discretionary sanction rules. Fut.Perf. ☼ 15:15, 27 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Why don't you ban Galassi? Have you followed the course of the discussion at all? This is pure arbitrariness! --Voyevoda (talk) 15:29, 27 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

For your breach of the above topic ban, through these [2] edits, I have blocked you for another month. Fut.Perf. ☼ 16:32, 29 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I know about you more than you think I do, but I am simply polite my Russkie!--SeikoEn (talk) 20:19, 15 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hehehe, nice try, obscure troll. --Voyevoda (talk) 20:23, 15 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

No offense but you're boring! Find a job!--SeikoEn (talk) 14:14, 16 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Dude, you strive to demonstrate me your stupidity? Congratulations, you did it! --Voyevoda (talk) 14:31, 16 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Forgive me for intrusion, but I just think it would be nice if we all be more polite and civil. And of course, SeikoEn, your postings here are inappropriate and should be qualified as WP:HARASSMENT. Please avoid such behavior in the future. GreyHood ^Talk 16:34, 16 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hello! You seem to be a rare person here in the English Wikipedia with an interest in ancient Russian history and a strong background in it. I thought I'd ask you, if you could help in translating some parts of the article ru:Варяги to the article Varangians? We need a balanced article on this subject with more of Russian sources. GreyHood ^Talk 14:44, 19 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

For revert-warring on Crimean Tatars. The same has been applied to your opponent, who is also a repeat revert-warrior. Fut.Perf. ☼ 00:12, 26 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Edit summaries like these "[3]", and "[4]" are really inappropriate and counter productive.  Volunteer Marek  14:29, 12 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

You are right, of course. But what is more counterproductive, is to persecute users and revert almost EVERYTHING they do out of nationalistic motives, like Galassi does. It is even more ridiculous and counterproductive, if the reverting person has obviously very weak knowledge of the matter. If the admins fail to notice what kind of user this is, the olny thing left to stop him is to ridicule him in front of all others. --Voyevoda (talk) 15:19, 12 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

No, actually, "ridiculing" him, or others for that matter is not the only thing left and in fact, it's not a very good thing to do. Volunteer Marek  22:46, 12 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, Voyevoda. You continue to change Crimean Tatars by your POV (not to source) stubbornly. We know that you had been blocked because of this behavior. Please don't stop this edit without extra sources. Thank you. Takabeg (talk) 00:50, 15 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Stop sabotaging page about Ukrainians! You will not succeed because I will inform all users and administrators about this specific antiukrainian movement at Wikipedia!--Vitaly N. (talk) 19:12, 15 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Истерику прекрати и почитай правила Википедии. --Voyevoda (talk) 19:13, 15 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

This is your insulting of me and contrary to the rules of Wikipedia! Further, Russian antiukrainian propaganda and irelevant unreadable sources are not welcome! You can hate us but page about Ukrainians must stay objectiv!--Vitaly N. (talk) 19:20, 15 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Объективность в том, что заявления Пивторака обровергаемы историческими источниками. Я ничего не удалял, я дополнил и привёл источники. Имею право. Рекомендую успокоиться и начать соблюдать общепринятые правила редактирования. --Voyevoda (talk) 19:22, 15 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I would love to meet you!--Vitaly N. (talk) 19:28, 15 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, I'm hetero. --Voyevoda (talk) 19:29, 15 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Probably you would be sorry to see me! Stay out!--Vitaly N. (talk) 19:42, 15 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Why would I be sorry? Please explain. --Voyevoda (talk) 19:47, 15 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I'll be back!--Vitaly N. (talk) 20:21, 15 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Pivtorak is not important here, the same as Gaida. More important is scientist and historian Sklyarenko, well accepted! On the other side, your sentences are not objectiv and they are trying to prove russian stance of point view only - I will not allow that! You can't take previous sources and then put it behind your sentences, as you did! My suggestion is more objectiv, and it includes your suggestions so I don't understand why are you eraseing other sentences from Pivtorak or more important Sklyarenko, or others? Be reasonable, russian and ukrainain sources must be known at the same time so people can clearly understand problems of this subject!--SeikoEn (talk) 05:53, 28 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

«Україна» — це не «окраїна»: Як дослідив український учений В. Скляренко 63, процес становлення поняття «Україна» був досить тривалим і мав декілька етапів ... I will accept your proposal if you write it objectively! Your last suggestion is not an objective but a politically-colored! Sooner or later I'll change it! This I promise you! You are not sufficiently versed in philology and therefore do not know what you write!--SeikoEn (talk) 06:16, 30 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Dude, the article is from Pivtorak. The only thing where Sklyarenko is cited, is your sentence above, about the "long-time" process. This is something nobody contradicts. However, there is no evidence that Sklyarenko supported all the others assumptions of Pivtorak, at least there is no direct source. Unless you show me a direct quote from Sklyarenko about the "krayina" etymology, we won't move further. You are pretty ridiculous teaching me philology while using nebulous second-level references. My sources are direct and linked. Moreover, I showed that Енциклопедiя Українознавства supports my version and even Sklyarenko is hardly more serious than it is.--Voyevoda (talk) 08:09, 30 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I mention you briefly here [5] though you're only tangentially involved I think. Volunteer Marek  17:12, 26 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Please do not attack other editors, as you did at Ukrainians. Comment on content, not on contributors. Personal attacks damage the community and deter users. Please stay cool and keep this in mind while editing. Thank you. Try to keep it civil and use discourse on the talk page to make controversial changes. Sweeping through and fighting everyone else is only going to make matters worse. Львівське (говорити) 07:50, 28 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I offer you the hand of reconciliation, if you want? Respect my views and citations and I will certainly respect yours. It is essential that we separate two different positions in the text (for any subject) so that the readers understands the two opposing viewpoints. It is not difficult and I do it constantly, this will create an objective text which will include russian and ukrainian point of view. I hope you understand that it is not justice what you are doing, and on the other hand, I do not think to write Russian history from the Ukrainian perspective. Also you have unnecessary violated several rules of Wikipedia. All this is not necessary, I believe that we can find common ground. Of course, if you want to? Understand this is a reasonable offer and not a weakness.--SeikoEn (talk) 08:45, 30 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Further discussion on Talk:Ukrainians#Proposition. --Voyevoda (talk) 10:22, 30 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Your photo is a bad copy of mine and it can't be good replacment because there is no liscence or summary for every person on the montage!! Do you understand taht! You disappoint me, I thought you want a truce ... Return all photos on other pages or I will do it, but then we are finished! Good night!--SeikoEn (talk) 20:56, 30 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

You have been blocked indefinitely for your persistent history of aggressive battleground conduct, edit warring and personal attacks. I notice you have already seen the block and posted an appeal above. Sorry for the late block notice; I was busy typing up Talk:Ukrainians#Sanctions, with more explanation and sanctions on several other participants too. Fut.Perf. ☼ 21:32, 30 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I find your sanction very unjust. Why don't you admit that I was heavily provoked by the uncooperative opponents? Yes, I was rude to Galassi, but have you ever saw him seriously taking part in a discussion? Everything he does is to revert. I was groundlessly insulted as vandal many times although I always give an argumented reason for my edits in the discussion. Now they wanted to keep their version IGNORING many of my questions, arguments and objections. Do you think, I like all this warring? Of course not! I would be glad if everything could be settled in a more civilized way. Why don't you see that with that disruptive opponents, it is extremely difficult? If administrators monitored the situation, evaluated it correctly and regulated it timely, I would never be in such a position... :( --Voyevoda (talk) 21:41, 30 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy).

Voyevoda (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

---

Request reason:

I was blocked for an indefinite time for my dispute with other users at Ukrainians. They reverted more times than me, didn't react on my arguments in discussions but insisted on keeping their version, especially User:SeikoEn, a sockpuppeteer, who many times groundlessly insulted me as vandal. Yes, I called other users vandals, too, but if you check their contribution and boycotting the discussions, I hope you will admit that I had reason to. I consider this blocking as very unjust because I tried to be constructive and to discuss, in contrast to my opponents. I kindly ask an unbiased administrator (not Future Perfect at Sunrise who seems to persecute me) to check this situation as well as the role and the behaviour of the involved users. Of course, I don't want all this warring and would be glad to further contribute constructively my knowlegde to Wikipedia if administrators timely protected me from destructive and uncooperative opponents.

Decline reason:

WP:NOTTHEM. --jpgordon^{::==( o )} 22:45, 30 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

---

If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.

I support this unblock appeal, though of course recent Voyevoda's rudeness to Galassi is an unacceptable conduct and likely should be sanctioned in some way. However I believe Voyevoda made a good job with sources and constantly tried to engage his opponents into discussion instead of pure and blind edit warring. He started a discussion at the Talk:Ukrainians, which was promising regarding some aspects of the article improvement, and this was welcomed even by some of his opponents (reasonable people like Lvivske). For me it looked like the start of a normal discuss and edit process, but it was interrupted by recent bans and restrictions. Also, I should note that Voyevoda is highly knowledgable on the topic and is one of the few active editors with significant expertise on medieval history of Russia and Ukraine, which is unfortunately a neglected area of Wikipedia. Surely the encyclopedia would not benefit from a loss of such editor. So I propose to give Voyevoda one more chance and perhaps use more special sanctions instead of a full ban. GreyHood ^Talk 23:44, 30 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I emphatically oppose an unblock, due to Voyevoda's extremely offensive language in his personal attacks: He refers to Ukrainians as "свидомиты"- svidomites, i.e. a conflation of terms "svidomyj" (lit.-aware, i.e. ethnically conscious) and "sodomites" (http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Greyhood&diff=458144140&oldid=458142617).--Galassi (talk) 01:04, 31 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Voyevoda is Ukrainian himself, and the terms "svidomyj" and "свидомиты" do not have such a wide meaning, being used only for a certain kind of Ukrainian nationalists. GreyHood ^Talk 10:14, 31 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Try googling the term. ~That yields a lot vile hate speech.--Galassi (talk) 20:19, 31 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

A file that you uploaded or altered, File:FamousUKR.JPG, has been listed at Wikipedia:Files for discussion. Please see the discussion to see why it has been listed (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry). Feel free to add your opinion on the matter below the nomination. Thank you. Kelly ^hi! 12:49, 1 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]