User talk:Bogdan~enwiki/archive 2

Images

Bogdan, your work on the UA-military topics is greatly appreciated. Just a friendly reminder, please take some time to make a good fairuse rationale for every non-free image you upload. There are dedicated users whose entire activity is image patrol. They have no interest in articles and tag images for deletion mercilessly. The only way to keep the non-free images safe is justifying their use very well. --Irpen 02:21, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the warning. And I hope I won't have to run into any image-deletion guys in the near future. But to be honest, I truly don't know the first thing about copyright/fair use/public domain etc...I noticed that you retagged this image. Would that sort of license be acceptable for most military images (given that I follow WP:NFURG)? Also, would an image taken at...for example an air-show, or arms expo be considered some kind free use image? And lastly, does "PD-UA-exempt" apply to anything other then logos? Best regards, Bogdan 03:42, 25 September 2007 (UTC).

PD-UA-exempt applies to very little but logos, state symbols, flags, coats of arms, etc. Actually, we are rather lucky in Ukraine to have a law that puts the logos of all organizations, including the commercial enterprises, into non-copyrightable category

With the exception of the photographing the copyrighted work of art, the copyright for most of images taken at airshows or arms expos belong to the photographer who took them or his employer. If you took such images, you are free to license it in any way you wish. Your Wikipedia text contributions are licensed by default as GFDL. Many people use the same license for their own images they upload. {{cc-by-sa}} is a very similar license to GFDL and due to some small subtleties many find that it fits better for images than GFDL.

If you know the photographer or can get in contact with him, your best bet is to get his permission to release the image under one of free licenses. {{cc-by-sa}} of all free licenses acceptable here is probably the best bet to get the photographer agree to because it requires the attribution to the original author upon any further use down the chain and it requires those who use it to also release the derivative work under free license, thus preventing the reusers to attach any new restriction to the work whose original author released it.

If the free license cannot be obtained (newspapers would unlikely release their image under a free license) in order to qualify for Wikipedia, the image has to be justifiable under WP:FU concept. First it has to be irreplaceable. Secondly, the image has to be of crucial importance to illustrate the article and a free replacement not only cannot be found but reasonably unlikely to ever be obtained. For example, the images of the old tank that are parked in the museums cannot be claimed irreplaceable as any Wikipedian can go to the museum and take a picture of it. The image of the military unit in active action in a dangerous place, OTOH, is truly irreplaceable as wondering strangers are unlikely to be with the camera in the war-torn Kosovo. So, you should always add a fairuse rationale to any non-free image that would state three things:

1. the source of the image
2. explanation of why it is crucial for an article it illustrates
3. why the free replacement is not likely to be possible.

For instance, a copyrighted image taken by the media that would illustrate the aircrash during the Sknyliv airshow disaster would be irreplaceable for that article since there is no way to make a picture of this tragic event now and there were no precedents to this day of the commercial media agreeing to release their property under a free license (no wonder, it is their bread and butter.) But such image would not be acceptable to illustrate a Su-27 article, unless the article discusses the incident and the image would help the reader understand it better. HTH, --Irpen 03:59, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

Thanks, I'll be sure to read the wiki guidelines and retag all my images according to your outline. Thanks again, Bogdan 19:48, 25 September 2007 (UTC).

Ukrainian Ground Forces

Hi; I have begun to create an OrBat graphic of the Ukrainian Ground Forces as there is now enough information available. But one question remains: What is the strength of the regiments and battalions? Examples:

• 93rd Mechanized Brigade has 5 regiments and 8 battalions - if I take an average regiment size of 1000 men and an average battalion size of 500 men, then the Brigade has a strength of 9.000 men. This is too much for a Brigade.
• 25th Airborne Brigade has 4 battalions and 7 companies - with companies of around 100 men - the brigade has 2.700 men. This is the right size for a Brigade.

Now my question is: What symbol should I use for the regiments and battalions? As I see it the regiments should have the battalion symbol II and the units called battalions should have the company symbol I. But maybe you can help me and give me a better idea what strength symbol I should use. The units names I will copy 1 to 1 from wikipedia into the graphic - that means units named regiments will also be named regiment in the graphic. thanks, --noclador 22:48, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

Replied at User talk:Ceriy. Bogdan 23:06, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

Thanks Bogdan - I think your idea is good and we should continue the discussion at User talk:Ceriy#Ukrainian Ground Forces 2. noclador 01:54, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

Angolan Civil War

According to the Spanish-language Wikipedia, the picture is of a European-tank sold to Cuba that was used in the Angolan Civil War. Perspicacite 01:23, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

Ukraine

Bogdan, what will it take for Ukraine to be a good article? Is it realistic to try to get it to be a featured article? Tell me what needs to be done, and I will try to help. Thanks, Ostap 23:08, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

Hello Ostap, I must say that your message on Irpen's talk page somewhat inspired me. I just figured for today I'd put in some images to illustrate the necessary, and some references for what is questionable. And I should probably add some more UPA content as I feel today's contributions were somewhat a pro-Soviet POV (DniproGES, treaty of Pereyaslav, Soviet posters etc...), what do you think? Oh and good idea with the sports section, I can't believe that wasn't included.

Anyways, in my mind, no, an FAC at this time would be doomed not to pass. Just look at Russia, she has triple the references and it's FAC is, most likely going to fail. But GA review might not be a bad idea. Even if it fails (which in my mind more so depends on the reviewer), it would give us something to strive for.

In my personal opinion, Ukraine still needs an education section, some more citation (as do all other articles), there are probably some MoS caps and to some people it will probably seem POVed (just guessing). But then again maybe we should avoid citing the obvious (as they do in Russia. For example- Russia also[1][2][3] the Russian Federation.), and stick to citing figures and questioned facts. On the same note...I've never written an FA so we're best getting a more experienced opinion.

Honestly, I wasn't going to focus on general Ukraine-related articles until I was done with the military stuff. But as soon as I finish an article on the Ukrainian ministry of defense (should take no more then two or three days), then I'll dedicate my edits to Ukraine. I say, if we donate enough of our time...then at least a GA by the end of the year :), Bogdan ^що? 00:23, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

I will help. I pretty much single-handedly transformed Russia into a completely different article this year. Here[2] is the pathetic state the article was in on my first edit (I used to use the username Ilya1166). You can see how much the article has changed since then. Note that while I will help with the Ukraine article, my knowledge of it isn't as intimate as Russia, so my role will be limited to an editoral one rather than adding information.--Miyokan 02:47, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

Thanks, we could use all the help we can get. I think our biggest challenge will be referencing (or maybe re-writing) the history section, there is practically no citation...I'll look through the stock exchange files to find the growth a little later. Thanks again, Bogdan ^що? 02:56, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

By the way, when is the Russian FAC going to close? I'm curious to see the result. Bogdan ^що? 03:02, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

The FAC's are decided upon by chronological order, so when Russia reaches the bottom of the list here(Wikipedia:Featured article candidates) it will be decided.--Miyokan 11:42, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

DYK

Did you know? was updated. On 21 November, 2007, a fact from the article Ministry of Defense (Ukraine), 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.

--Zzyzx11 (Talk) 23:46, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

Za Viyskovu Sluzhbu

		For Military Service to Ukraine
		You are hereby awarded this Ukrainian National Award "For Military Service to Ukraine" (on Wikipedia): for excellent work on Ministry of Defense (Ukraine) with superb illustrations of the ministry's structure, its insignia, and service patch for extensive contributions on Ukrainian Ground Forces for over 100 contributions to Ukraine and for having close to 600 edits in the month of November, 2007. Salute!--Riurik(discuss) 07:49, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

Дуже дякую Riurik! Your motivation has been invaluable to me; I only hope that I may live up to the award in the future. Although rest assured, there will be many more such productive months to come :-). Thanks so much! Bogdan ^що? 21:19, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

Нагорода заслужена. Awards are just a side kick. I think most people spend their time editing on Wikipedia, because they like writing about certain topic(s) and probably would do so without the awards (possibly with less enthusiasm, but still). Recognition however of duly invested time is helpful, in my opinion, because as you correctly note it provides the motivation and the knowledge that one's work on Wikipedia is appreciated. As for living up to a specific award, I think most of us go up and down in cycles; one month we contribute a lot, the next one less. There is no pressure to continue contributing at the same frequency level, although hopefully at the same quality. The important part, I think, is that whenever you do edit, your work is noticed and appreciated (with or without an award). This is turning into some kind of a treatise.--Riurik^(discuss) 08:29, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

Congradulations with the new award. Nice job with the MoD article. Ceriy 13:15, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

Well put Riurik, thanks Ceriy. Regards, Bogdan ^що? 21:26, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

Translating Sov divisions

Thanks for your work at 150th Rifle Division - it's much appreciated. When you get the chance to do another one, please look at the 25th RD - ru:25-я Чапаевская стрелковая дивизия. As we've already got the 24th it'd be good to get the 25th as well. Also what did you think as you were translating it - the Ru-lang article says it was initially formed with three brigades, while I understood Soviet rifle divisions operated with regiments? Thanks again Buckshot06 (talk) 07:55, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

I'm not sure about the Red Army's structure (I am no expert on the subject), whether it was in brigades, battalions, regiments...etc, but yes the division was formed of 3 ski brigades. I'll find some time to do the 25th within the next few days. Regards, Bogdan ^що? 21:26, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

Thanks very much for that; one more down, a couple of hundred to go!! Thanks again, Buckshot06 (talk) 01:46, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

I do, sort of - a copy of Feskov's 2004 book, in soft copy, that I pulled off the internet. Has massive amounts of data for 1945-89. The trouble is that I cannot read it without great difficulty, but you'll be able to read it easily. Can you give me an email address (send it through my wikipedia email link if you wish) so that I can forward it to you? Regards Buckshot06 (talk) 00:45, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

Hi Bogdan, I've started a rewrite at Talk:T-55AGM/Temp, apparently the procedure-approved place for doing so. Moved your material there. Cheers Buckshot06 (talk) 01:41, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

I'm not sure. If you're willing to keep an eye out on the prospect of copyvios inherent in redoing the page ourselves (and maybe you know, or can find, sources on the T-55AGM which are different, and write some real text, which would get us out of our hole), why don't you remerge my text at the page and we'll see what happens... Buckshot06 (talk) 01:54, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

Not a problem - take your time. I believe Jimbo just reset the final publishing deadline back, again, for the fifth time or so....! Have a good holiday..Buckshot06 (talk) 05:28, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

Hi Bogdan, see you're editing again. If you feel like doing another translation, the 16th Rifle Division has just been added to Ru-wiki - ru:16-я Литовская стрелковая дивизия. When/if you've got the time please do take a crack at it. Thanks and best regards for the New Year (now or '14 January' as you wish!) Buckshot06 (talk) 01:32, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

Thankyou Bogdan for the prompt response. I really appreciate you doing these articles. I actually knew about 8 Air Army but 383 RD is new. Cheers and thanks again, Buckshot06 (talk) 03:51, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

Hey quick work on the 16th - thanks very much! Cheers Buckshot06 (talk) 21:59, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

And on the 383rd as well!! Cheers Buckshot06 (talk) 02:56, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

Yet another translation request - I know. If you feel like doing another one, take a look at ru:Ленинградский фронт. I really appreciate all the help you've given with these!! Cheers Buckshot06 (talk) 08:52, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

DYK

Did you know? was updated. On 1 December, 2007, a fact from the article 150th Rifle Division, 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.

--Zzyzx11 (Talk) 20:29, 1 December 2007 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Ukraine

The article Article you nominated as a Ukraine has failed , see Talk:Ukraine for reasons why the nomination failed. If or when these points have been taken care of, you may apply for a new nomination of said article. If you oppose this decision, you may ask for a reassessment. SriMesh | talk 02:10, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

I'm honoured

Bogdane,

I'm honoured by this [[3]]. Believe it or not, I actually sign everything that I edit. Bud'mo. Horlo 05:47, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

Ha-ha, well you are the only user I have known to be accused of being a "single purpose account", so I just thought...you were up to your old sock-puppeteering ways. Its good to hear from you Horlo, I hope you finish up with that nonsense some time soon. Regards, Bogdan ^що? 20:51, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

Ukraine GA

I guess wikipedia just doesn't appreciate quality! (I think you did marvelous work on the article.) Ostap (talk) 04:13, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

Thank you Ostap. But I must say I was also rather disappointed with the review, most of the observations were directed at meager grammar mistakes that would take seconds to correct, and not at improvement of the article as a whole. I as far as I can see, all the article needs in some more citation for history, after that it shall by re-nominated. Best regards, Bogdan ^що? 04:29, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

Bogdan, I know you want the article to be recognized as a good article, and as one of the elements the article needs to be referenced better. But it means that the quality of references needs to be improved, not only the number of references. For example, if we need to add a reference to the statement "Ukraine was stricken with eight straight years of economic decline", then in my opinion the reliable sources in support of this statement are World Bank, IMF, UN, State Statistics Committee of Ukraine, Ministry of Economy of Ukraine, Ministry of Finance of Ukraine, National Bank of Ukraine, etc. I don't quite see a benefit of supporting the mentioned statement by the Scientific Society's report on outsourcing to Ukraine, which seems to be a randomly picked (by google?) hardly related source ([4]). I guess for me it's more important that the article is actually good rather than just formally attaining the good article status. Greggerr (talk) 08:38, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

Yes, you're right. I shall try to use more undeniable sources in the future. Thanks for fixing that. Bogdan ^що? 20:52, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

Another DYK

On 13 December, 2007, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article 25th Rifle Division (Soviet Union), 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.

--EncycloPetey (talk) 02:13, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

Ukrainian Patches

Please upload the patches to wikimedia, so that they can be all stored in the same place. And there is a 7th aviation patch in there, I forgot to insert it to the article. http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Category:Patches_of_Military_of_Ukraine Ceriy (talk) 16:07, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

Chekist Day!

File:Felix Dzerzhinsky 1919.jpg

I hope you had a happy Chekist Day on the twentieth! As Putin says, this is a day to "remember the heroic pages in the history of the country's special services. [1]"

---

Ostap 21:33, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

Just trying to be humorous. Please revert if you don't find it funny. Ostap 21:33, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

Ha-ha, not at all Ostap. How can one ignore such a joyous occasion. I hope you also had a jolly ЧК-day! Bogdan ^що? 16:41, 22 December 2007 (UTC)

Merry Xmas

I wish you a very Merry Christmas and Happy New Year! --R O ^{A M A T A A} | msg  17:56, 24 December 2007 (UTC)

Thanks

Bohdane,

Thank you for wikifying my edits on the Zaporozhtsi. I'm good at grammar and content, not good at WP:Style.

Have a great New Year.

Horlo (talk) 07:15, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

З Новим роком!

DDima wishes you a Happy New Year!
—dima/talk/ 22:55, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

З Новим Роком!

Riurik wishes you a Happy 2008!

--Riurik^(discuss) 21:55, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

Thanks Bogdan

The brackets were leftovers from my earlier experimentation (still working on it). I have seen your contribs, so good luck also.-- mrg3105mrg3105 01:38, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

January 2008

Thank you for making a report on Wikipedia:Administrator intervention against vandalism. Reporting and removing vandalism is vital to the functioning of Wikipedia and all users are encouraged to revert, warn, and report vandalism. However, administrators are generally only able to block users if they have received a recent final warning (one that mentions that the user may be blocked) and they have recently vandalized after that warning was given. The reported user has not yet been blocked because it appears this has not occurred yet. If this user continues to vandalize even after their final warning, please report them to the AIV noticeboard again. Thank you! Snowolf ^{How can I help?} 19:07, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

No, it isn't. IP != users. There is no such thing as a "vandal-only IP". Snowolf ^{How can I help?} 19:16, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

Your name was mentioned (briefly) at WP:COIN

Why do I keep having to send out these silly notices? There was a mention of your name at WP:COIN#Odessa Numismatics Museum and you are certainly welcome to add your comments there. 20:05, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

Hey Bogdan! Any chance you know the editor 91.90.15.34 (talk · contribs), who seems to be based in Odessa and is very active on the above museum article? He won't participate on any Talk pages, and the thread at COIN is getting rather displeased with his spammy addition of links and See Alsos, even in articles such as Christmas Card. Would be grateful if you can give any advice on how to get his attention. EdJohnston (talk) 06:52, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

DYK

On 7 January, 2008, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article 383rd Rifle Division (Soviet Union), 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 (talk) 21:32, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

DYK

On 8 January, 2008, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article 16th Rifle Division (Soviet Union), 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 (talk) 05:35, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

Second World War losses

I saw your corrections, adn I'm sure this is not the first time you have encountered this subject. I have seen analysis of Krivoshein's figures which suggests a higher figure of 10 million (an article in Russian from the internet) so would liek to talk to you on the saubject when my home PC is back online. Cheers--mrg3105mrg3105 05:25, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

Hello. Yes, I've encountered this topic before. And I have seen figures ranging anywhere from 7 million, to as high as 15. Personally, I like Кривошеев's 8,6 million + some 2 million POWs figure. Although his 1.4 million Ukrainians figure seems a little low. I believe we should come up with some uniform figure for all related articles. Or alternatively, simply say that estimates have a very wide range. I'd appreciate it if you could send me your link when you get the chance. Regards, Bogdan ^що? 21:36, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

Hi Bogdan. Have you read this http://militera.lib.ru/research/pyhalov_i/15.html ? Its from Пыхалов И. Великая Оболганная война. — М.: Яуза, Эксмо, 2005. --mrg3105mrg3105 23:43, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

No, but I'll be sure to do so later today. Thanks, Bogdan ^що? 00:37, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

Image creation?

Hi Bogdan, I was wondering whether you or whether you know anyone with the knowhow to reproduce this excellent Britannica image I found of the growth of Russia. [5] Obviously I can't upload the Britannica image and I also wanted to make it chronological moving image like this [6]. Best regards, --Miyokan (talk) 15:57, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

I'm afraid I can't really help you. All I know is that those kinds of animated images are usually made with the Jasc Animation Shop. But although it looks fancy, I think that an animated image for Russia (with only seven steps) wouldn't be as valuable as the US one. And you could try to replicate the standard Britannica image in something like inkscape (which is free), or even in MS paint. Bogdan ^що? 21:22, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

You could try asking User:Zscout370, a very respected editor and apparently good with graphics. Bogdan ^що? 21:27, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

Thank you! --Miyokan (talk) 08:00, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

Можна дещо дізнатись?

Як ви помістили на своїй сторінці так, що лого Вікіпедії на фоні синьожовтого прапору? Як це можна зробити і на своїй сторінці в українській вікі? Не підкажете? Boduni (talk) 16:00, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

Looks like someone beat me to it. Bogdan ^що? 21:22, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

Thanks a lot! My userpage in Ukrainian Wikipedia looks pleasantly/ Boduni (talk) 10:06, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

article structure consistency

Would like your input on the article structure I have developed for the series of articles dealing with Eastern Front operations. I am particularly concerned with the introduction section vs the opening paragraph. The opening paragraph is supposed to be a brief summary of the entire article, but I have found way too much information inserted in them in other articles, duplicating information in 'campaign boxes' and repeated in the introductions that follow Contents.

Below is a suggested standard structure for article taxonomy based more on the military terminology, and incorporating a way of describing an event that follows a more military event structure.

• ‘’’Introductory briefing’’’ (unnamed) – a short, one paragraph of no more then seven average length sentences, description of the article addressing the question when, where, who, why, larger context, significance, and outcome.) Using Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history/Essays/Describing conflicts would be helpful here.

+Contents (here)

• Role in the conflict – describes role of the event in the larger conflict. A war also has a context in a larger conflict since it usually evolves from non-armed forms of conflict such as social, cultural, political and economic conflicts.

• • Campaign situation – this describes the event in terms of a war's theatre campaign.
  • Strategic situation (as required) – this describes the event in terms of the campaign where an operation is the event
  • Operation situation (as required) – this describes the event in terms of the operation where a battle is the event
  • Battle situation (as required) – this describes the event in terms of the battle where an event describes a part of a tactical battle

• Decision making – after assessment of the situation comes the decision-making process that seeks to change the existing situation through securing of initiative by offensive action.

• • Goal of the operation – to change the situation one needs a situational change goal
  • Objective of the battle – at the tactical level the goal is called an objective
  • Side A intelligence – the first step is to gather understanding by the attacked (A) of the defender’s (D) capacity to resist
  • Side D intelligence – usually anyone suspicious of an attack will also gather intelligence on the likelihood of an impending attack

• Planning – after the intelligence is gathered, planning starts

• • Side A – description of planning should begin with a) organisational description, b) logistic arrangements, c) personnel availability and abilities, and d) technology to be used.
    • Forces involved – organisation of forces and their structural description (in modern times described as tables of equipment of organisation and equipment) need to be given
  • Side D
    • Forces involved

• Description of the Campaign/Strategic operation/operation/battle – this is the core part of the article. All military events have phased sequence that can be divided into:

• • Initial attack – describes initial execution of the plan
  • Progress of the offensive – describes success or failure of the plan
  • Decisive action – describes the instance when the plan has the greatest chance of success or failure, or the attempt to correct the divergence from the plan
  • Final commitment – any attempts to secure success or prevent failure of the plan
  • Outcomes – comparison of end result with the planned result of the event plan

• Consequences – the impact of the outcomes on events that follow, but which are not part of the above-described plan

• • Immediate effects – immediate effects that include changes in a) organisational description, b) logistic arrangements, c) personnel availability and abilities, and d) technology to be used.
  • Effects on future planning – describe effects on the planning in the larger scope of events

• Myths – often popular rendition or beliefs about the event that are either partly or completely false, or presented for the purpose of propaganda
• Memorials – a means of post event commemoration of the event
• Popular culture – depiction of the event in popular culture and media
• References – page reference in an authoritative source used to research the article content
• Footnotes – explanatory notes for points made in the article
• Bibliography – sources used for the compilation of research on the article
• See also – other Wikipedia articles related to the event
• Online resources – other online sites that relate to the event or its larger context
• Further reading – other sources not used for the research of the article but recommended to the reader

The purpose of the article structure suggested above is not to straight-jacket the authors and editors, but to enhance consistency of presentation throughout the project’s assortment of articles to the reader, and to enable the future editors to be more focused in the editing process by providing more focused sections in the article structure. Thank you--mrg3105mrg3105 00:10, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

My RfA

Thanks for your support at my request for adminship, which passed today with 42/0/0! I would like to thank Wizardman for nominating me, Bogdan~enwiki/archive 2 and everyone else for their support and comments. I'll continue with contributing to the encyclopedia's content (hopefully writing an FA here and there :) and will help out with admin-related tasks which you just entrusted me with. If you need any help, don't hesitate to ask! Thanks again, —dima/talk/ 01:40, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

For your valuable work

File:Interlingual Barnstar.png		The Geography Barnstar
		You deserve this barnstar for your excellent work on Ukraine, which has been recognized as a good article. Greggerr (talk) 23:49, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

Excellent work Bogdan. I knew you would get it to GA. Ostap 02:13, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

Hey, thanks a lot! But really, don't be like that, Ostap. You deserve just as much credit as anyone, so does Greggerr, or Dima, or Riurik, or Mikoyan...etc. I'm actually very proud of this article, for it was put together by the whole Ukraine wikiproject, not a single editor, and I sincerely hope we can get the same productiveness to pass it through FAC. That said, I'm thinking about partially rewriting the culture section to match that of Germany or Russia (literature, arts, possibly cinema). What do you guys think? Thanks again! Bogdan ^що? 06:51, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

Allow me to join in the congrats. While I appreciate the credit, I would rather remain under the rubric of the wikiproject; I keep my eye on the article and make minor edits, but unlike other editors, I did not spend a significant portion of my time developing this piece and pushing its quality up. Those need to be recognized, and as I see they have been. See you around, --Riurik^(discuss) 01:33, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

Well done Bogdan! Let's all keep up the good work! About the culture section, I think that we can add sections like Media and the Arts/Architecture.. What do you think? —dima/talk/ 04:19, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

Exactly what I had in mind, but lets hold it off until Friday. Bogdan ^що? 04:20, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

Sure. Another thing I think we should do is to change the images in Ukraine#Language to more fit the section. Something like a representation of Ukraine's majority languages per region (like Image:Ukr lang ukr 2001.jpg).. —dima/talk/ 04:31, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

Yeah alright. Although I remember the children on the maidan image was Greggerr's idea, something about an issue of taste...Bogdan ^що? 04:36, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

[7] Here it is. Nevermind that was about demographics from which we later split the 'Language' section. Bogdan ^що? 04:40, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

(Image:Ukrainian lang.png?) Bogdan ^що? 04:42, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

Well done

Congrats on getting Ukraine past GA, keep up the good work.--Miyokan (talk) 04:16, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

Thanks, appreciate it. Bogdan ^що? 04:18, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

Great Patriotic War is not the same as World War II

GPA refers only to the Soviet-German War, not the entirety of World War II. Oberiko (talk) 23:39, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

Nonetheless, I think it is still relevant to the article, as it is the name of the conflict given by a participant, which is different from the common English name. It's fairly important for readers to see how different participant entitled the war, no? Bogdan ^що? 23:50, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

In USSR the name was synonimous, and all Western Allied activities were contextualisd within the struggle with Germany--mrg3105mrg3105 00:53, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

Kharkiv

I am sorry, but in Kharkiv Russian language have regional status - this language not offical, but regional. According to the decision of the Kharkiv city council Russian language used interchangeably with Ukrainian language. Perhaps you do not know, but editing in the article "Kharkiv" You rolled in vain. 92.113.129.235 (talk) 12:44, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

request

Hey, while doing a search for instances of "the Ukraine" on this site, I just stumbled across this article. It has no references, and seems to make some bold claims. Could you look it over and perhaps verify some of these claims, such as that "Gays are exempt from the military "? Ostap 21:48, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

Wow, we didn't have an article on the Ukrainian Soviet war until two days ago but we've had an article on gays in Ukraine since 2005...quite disturbing. Anyways, I did what I could. Bogdan ^що? 22:31, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

Thanks, but what is the point of having that quote in the article? Ostap 22:32, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

Well, it's the only believable source given. And apparently the guy stating it is a renowned "Gay activist". Bogdan ^що? 22:37, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

That sort of claim is made by him to make Ukrainians look bad. I say remove it. Ostap 22:41, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

Alright. But...Make Ukrainians look bad, how? Bogdan ^що? 22:44, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

He is saying that Ukrainains are all "intolerant" and "homophobic" barbarians because most don't approve of legalizing gay marriage (I saw a stat online last spring that said less than 10% of Ukrainians support legalizing gay marriage), as opposed to the French or the Dutch. Ostap 22:52, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

Yes I read the article, but you misunderstood my question. How do Ukrainians look bad if they're homophobic? You can't say it's not true... Bogdan ^що? 22:56, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

Being labeled as having a phobia is not desirable. Furthermore, its not true. Are other people really seen as "zoo animals"? He is just trying to make Ukrainians look bad. How does it make Ukrainians look if they view other people as "zoo animals"? Ostap 23:01, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, I see your point. Bogdan ^що? 02:06, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

In reality, no human being is being treated as a zoo animal. And being opposed to homosexual marriage is not a sign of a phobia, which is defined as an "irrational, intense, persistent fear". (emphasis on irrational) But sorry for going on and on about all of this. See you around. Ostap 03:04, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

Translation request: Soviet formations

Hi Bogdan, best wishes. I did ask you a little while ago whether you'd be able to translate ru:Ленинградский фронт, as currently the Leningrad Front article is a redirect. I can struggle my way through the commanders and chiefs of staffs names etc, so you don't have to do that, but the text is impossible. I would really appreciate that if you were able to. Best regards and thanks, Buckshot06 (talk) 05:55, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the very quick work Bogdan - appreciate you have RL tasks and other priorities. The list after the point in time you specify relates to all armies that served with the Front, and they moved in and out as circumstances dictated. I know very little about the Russian Civil War, but have you talked to user:Jacob Haller? He seems to be the expert. However if you've got specific questions list them and I'll go looking as well. Cheers Buckshot06 (talk) 03:08, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

Thanks again for this Bogdan. Hope you found out what you wanted about the Ukrainian side of the Russian Civil War and associated fighting. When you've got another chunk of spare time, would you mind considering translationg ru:2-й Дальневосточный фронт? - our 2nd Far East Front right now is a redirect. Best regards Buckshot06 (talk) 04:32, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

Image copyright problem with Image:Avs36.jpg

Image Copyright problem

Thank you for uploading Image:Avs36.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. Alex Spade (talk) 09:48, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

On 4 February, 2008, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Ukrainian People's Army, 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.

--Archtransit (talk) 16:47, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

DYK

On 5 February, 2008, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Leningrad Front, 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.

- P.K.Niyogi (talk) 14:11, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

Stock market comparison

I don't understand your comment How can you compare the Russian stock market to Ukraine’s, other than being ex-soviet countries...they are nothing alike, we are comparing the value of countries stock markets, any countries can compare their stock market by value. Ukraine is compared to Russia because they are the 2 largest ex-Soviet republics by population and were the 2 largest republic economies in the Soviet era, and stock market capitalization is an economic measure that measures how they have fared since.--Miyokan (talk) 03:23, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

Let me put it this way...What is Russia's largest corporation? Bogdan ^що? 04:10, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

That's a fair statement, but let me puncture some holes in that argument. Firstly, unlike middle east countries, Russia's economy isn't solely dependent on oil/gas. Oil/gas stopped driving economic growth by 2003 and oil and gas only contributes to 5.7% of Russia's GDP[8]. Sberbank itself has a market capitalization of around $80 billion, almost double the entire Ukrainian stock market. Some other non-natural resource companies, Mobile TeleSystems, $25 billion, United Energy Systems, $50 billion, etc. Other ex-Soviet/communist countries without natural resources like Estonia/Latvia/Lithuania/Poland have done well. It's not necessary to include, I just thought it was an interesting comparison when I saw the large disparity between the 2 ex-Soviet neighbours.--Miyokan (talk) 04:36, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

From what I understand, market capitalization and GDP are very different. All I know is that on February 1, the RTS closed at $1181 billion, while Gazprom alone made up $295 billion [9]. What is that, around 25%? Either way, I feel its unjust comparing Ukraine to Russia in this respect. And of course the Russian economy isn't exactly like the Middle East's...but it's pretty close to it. p.s. Why don't you mention the Stock Market in Russia's economy section? Regards, Bogdan ^що? 19:16, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

As I understand it the Russian Trading System is not the only stock market in Russia, there is also the MICEX stock exchange (and probably others), which was worth $1 trillion at the end of 2007 [10][11]. I don't know how it works but adding them together would mean the RTS and MICEX put together would amount to over $2 trillion. I will probably add some information about the Russian stock market once I get all the information.--Miyokan (talk) 02:53, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

question

Sorry, of course this is true. But I am a little confused, are we talking about opposition to the soviet union or violent resistance? Ostap 00:45, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

In this case, the statement is referring to armed resistance, as it says, "...it was foreseen that a substantial period of insurgency against Soviet arms would begin." But either way, the point remains the same, there was much more opposition to the USSR in the West of Ukraine (they only joined in 1939...). Bogdan ^що? 03:28, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

Can you help with a wartime location?

Hi Bogdan, I was wondering if you can help with locating Струмилинский укрепленный район? Somewhere in Northwestern Ukraine, but not sure of the exact area (Chervonograd?). Cheers--mrg3105mrg3105 If you're not taking any flack, you're not over the target. 00:57, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

Ah...I've never heard of it but I'll see what I can do. Might I ask, how укрепленный? Bogdan ^що? 03:28, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

No idea but its in the standard entry for the 5th Army:

5-я армия первого формирования образована в 1939 г. в Киевском Особом военном округе.

Накануне войны в состав армии входили 15-й и 27-й стрелковые, 9-й и 22-й механизированные корпуса, Ковельский и Владимир-Волынский укрепленные районы, два узла обороны Струмилинского укрепленного района, другие части.

Perecheni says it was the 4th Fortified Region during 1941 (1st formation) (p.18). In 1945 2nd formation was created as Khabarovsk ukrepraion. --mrg3105mrg3105 If you're not taking any flack, you're not over the target. 05:17, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

point?

I am really not sure how you found this edit to be a violation of WP:POINT. If you read what I removed, it said that Russian is language of convenience in Ukraine. This is clearly not true. My removal was not supposed to be making a point at all. Ostap 04:45, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

I was refering to the chechen language category as a WP:POINT, not that edit. Bogdan ^що? 21:05, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

additional Ukrainian geographic articles

If I need additional Ukrainian geographic articles such as cities, rivers, etc., do you want me to create them, or can I leave it to yourself?--mrg3105 (comms) If you're not taking any flak, you're not over the target. 05:45, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

What do you mean? I think that sector of wikipedia is pretty well covered (See List of cities in Ukraine). Most of the articles aren't great but every notable city, and even some villages have their own articles. Bogdan ^що? 21:09, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

did the Mujahideen march on Moscow?

I saw your witty remark on the Soviet Intervention in Afghanistan article. Your remark is eloquent criticism of the recent editorial changes made to the article by certain others. Kenmore (talk) 22:50, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

Thanks, that whole dilemma really is unbelievable. But just so you know, you're not really supposed to edit archives. Bogdan ^що? 04:40, 2 March 2008 (UTC)