977:
presented here has been created. He also saw a connection between the portraits of royalty and the “selfies” that now have become popular with our new telephone technology. Witty, in my opinion. I can see several good points made by the work presented here. Most important perhaps is that
Swedish history is presented with brevity, but in an agreeable and easily accessible way. One of the additional good points is that a host of portraits is brought forth. The portraits are published in cropped formats, which gives one a better feel for the person behind the portrait. The thought of cropping portraits tighter has entered my mind as well, but has not born fruit in any of my books. Through his comprehension of both the English and the Swedish language, Jacob Truedson Demitz has also created a book that can be useful to those who wonder about name translation and similar matters. Furthermore, Demitz has put in fine work on presenting the History of Sweden. In that context he has noted, among other things, the burial sites of different monarchs, which is interesting indeed. Even quite a bit of ornamental information gives the wording spice. He also does a good deed by going back a thousand years in time. Far too much writing on Swedish history begins with King Gustav I (1520s), which leads to quite a loss of historical perspective. It is gratifying that Demitz gives early Swedish history some of the attention it deserves. In the context, I think he reasonably handles the uncertainties there are about the earliest Swedish history. An interesting list of bibliography contributes to the value of the book. All in all, I am delighted to write a few words about this book, which I believe can be useful as well as entertaining.
31:
821:
211:
789:, and with a few other redirects, haven't you created a mess? I cannot find it helpful that a redirect which once helpfully was for the disambiguation of various Swedish royal women by the same name now, confused, goes to an article about the name, not about any of them. Could you please try to be less sloppy and/or rushed, and perhaps less headstrong, when doing such work?
853:. This is not about article content. Feel free to continue to ignore your behavior issue (which will only worsen it) and move most of this to article talk. There I may choose to reply if I think there's any chance of reaching someone who wants to totally trash the academic contents of a history book preface by Dr.
1024:. I will start the discussion later this week. Hopefully we will obtain a neutral assessment on whether the book can be considered a reliable source, or whether the references to it should be replaced by more reliable sources. Looking at the old discussions scattered around WP, that discussion seems long overdue.
1043:
here because I haven't agreed with you about everything. I have not seen the book used as a reference except as might be supported by the preface by Dr. Sundberg. Preface text can and often is used as a reliable source, better so than the rest of many a book. OK, we know that you just don't like that
944:
Sundberg is an academic historian. If you think the preface he wrote indicates that he didn't carefully review the entire contents of the book especially its full 7 A4-small-print pages of bibliography, before he would want to write it and word it as he did, that is not only so wrong, it goes to show
557:
There is no excuse for making any change at all to items where consensus currently is being sought at talk. It's called jumping the gun, diplomatically, and I trust you won't do that again, nor attempt to justify such behavior. That's what this is about here. The rest goes on the article's talk page,
972:
In the summer of 2017 I needed help in fine-tuning the
English of what was to be my dissertation. On a recommendation, I then came into contact with the Swedish American Jacob Truedson Demitz, who meritoriously assisted me with the linguistic issues. Our work on my dissertation was simplified by the
538:
Perhaps we'll see after the move discussion whether we even need to include the ordinal number directly in the lede or only later in the article. Currently I don't see too many sources that call him Magnus III, and retaining it in such a prominent place seems like undue weight, especially when there
262:
on a single page within a 24-hour period. Undoing another editor's work—whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert. Also keep in mind that while violating the three-revert rule often leads to a block, you can still be blocked for edit
1076:
P.S. Note that I have tagged
Sundberg with {{notability}} this morning. Please don't take this personally, Sundberg is fine scholar, but the sources aren't simply good enough (yet). I have opened a discussion on the article talk page to explain my concern, but to really resolve this, we simply need
599:
Would you care to elaborate or are just casting aspersions? The move discussion was over and multiple users commented that the regnal number you are pushing as the "correct" one is not even the most common one, so what was the offense? The patronym is also not controversial. Is not accepting your
807:
And no, I don't think I've made a mess: the target page is quite short and contains the same list of names, so the navigation hasn't suffered. But I admit that I have yet to internalize all the intricacies of the human dab pages and similar pages, so I am open to suggestions. However, there is
976:
Jacob
Truedson Demitz eventually recognized the possibilities created by the collections of Swedish portraiture having been made available at Wikimedia Commons. By combining parts of the text of his earlier work with parts of the treasure of illustrations now available to the public, the work
714:
discussing. There's no discussion there, only a notice by you claiming to know Polish better that anyone else. Looks like you never are going to (bother to) learn the ropes on this. It's bound to get you in serious trouble wirth administrators eventually. I don't know if I'll be sad or glad.
221:; that means that you are repeatedly changing content back to how you think it should be, when you have seen that other editors disagree. To resolve the content dispute, please do not revert or change the edits of others when you are reverted. Instead of reverting, please use the
155:
on Bound states. The way it is stated now gives the impression that bound states can belong to the pure point spectrum as well as the continuous spectrum, or at least that the pure point spectrum is some sort of subset of the continuous spectrum. This is incorrect.
1091:
I know nothing about the background, but I'll say that in the current discussion, SergeWoodzing is the one that comes across as rather angry and confrontative from the start, while Jähmefyysikk's replies appear to be mostly calm and cooperative. —
1072:
I am sorry if I come off as angry. It might be related to the terse way in which I express myself. If it helps at all, I can assure you that I am not angry. I do however prefer to discuss specific content issues, and not make the discussion too
902:
Making extensive use of donations from 2016 on, by the
National Museum of Sweden to Wikimedia Commons, and crediting that museum for them, a new full color edition called Centuries of Selfies was published in 2020 with a preface by Ulf
122:
in scientific developments? A flagship IEEE conference should have a scientific merit. Many a times, it takes time for the citations to build up, therefore citation number shouldn't be the basis. Clearly, the ``thermodynamic
824:
are about her. I don't see any evidence that any of the other women would have been referred to as "Ingegerd of Sweden", so the dab page doesn't seem necessary. (Btw, This thread should have been opened on the article talk
1057:
I wrote to you here about a legitimate behavioral concern (bold type above) where you since have tried to correct the mess you made. That's good, and I should thank you for it. Perhaps you should stop being so angry now?
973:
fact that Demitz was well versed in
Swedish history. It turned out that he had penned a book about Swedish royalty, Throne of a Thousand Years (Los Angeles and Ludvika 1996), which was based on solid literary studies.
535:, probably also 'Barnlock' in the introductory paragraph, as they all feature in most sources. Your revert removed some of that information from the lead. It would have been better to just restore the ordinal.
909:
A new full color edition called
Centuries of Selfies was published in 2020 with a preface by Ulf Sundberg. It is illustrated with images that the National Museum of Sweden released to Wikimedia Commons in
163:
is given on it's wiki page as well as in the (open access) 2016 reference. What it means, informally, is that both the continous and pure point spectra can considered to be "embedded" in "the" spectrum.
543:, both of which are written by subject-matter experts) And we currently do not have the sources to decide which numbering scheme is the "correct" one. Sources discussing this question would be useful.
95:
Because the paragraphs in question are pure jargon with no useful wikilinks, and the cited sources are not notable; the paper has been cited 2 times. I fail to see this as a major development in the
828:
And I believe I would appear less headstrong to you in these discussions if you based your arguments on commonly accepted policies/guidelines, and not just on opinions which in WP carry zero weight.
930:
Oh, I think you’re referring to the fact that I don’t agree that Demitz’ claims should be attributed to
Sundberg. But why should they be? He only wrote the preface, not the rest of the book.
523:", if we include the ordinal. Whether Ladulås needs to be given in quotation marks is debatable. Regardless of the exact format of the first sentence, we should definitely include the names
308:
584:. Please do not change lead info from well-sourced and relevant items to your own personal POV. Ever. If you continue this behavior it will have to be reported for administrative review.
1106:
Well, thanx so much for taking sides! That's always such a great help when people aren't getting along. Oh, btw, this user and I are getting along much better now. Thanks to h and me. --
851:
a redirect which once helpfully was for the disambiguation of various
Swedish royal women by the same name now, confused, goes to an article about the name, not about any of them
418:
424:
Thanks, I am generally aware of this controversy, although previously not with all the details. However, the changes here were not on the article text, but on the citations:
190:) takes you somewhere that is not obvious from the blue text. Btw, a better place for this message would have been the article talk page, where others can also participate.
511:, and acknowledge that to comply with that I should have left the ordinal there for the time being. However, there is also an exception to the above guideline given by
1141:
321:
has recently become more commonly used in
English. "Kiev" was the longstanding title of Knowledge's article on the subject. However, a move discussion closed on
293:
The references were meticulously placed there to support the statements. The same cannot be said for your edits, which frequently misrepresent the sources.
425:
333:
89:
322:
140:
115:
1086:
1067:
1002:
954:
939:
925:
888:
866:
844:
772:
742:
694:
680:
631:
613:
567:
552:
832:
469:
455:
437:
302:
685:
You need to acquaint yourself with the meaning of the word "offense" and also stop giving orders when you already are way out of line. --
515:, which recommends giving the full name in bold (which may not be the short name chosen for the title); in this case, that could be e.g.
199:
1115:
1101:
167:
I think BIC should be viewed as a construct on its own, rather than to be taken literally. The previous phrasing was less ambiguous.
503:
Hi, the move discussion is about the article title, and the article text itself can be improved during the discussion. I did reread
176:
945:
your non-NPOV attitude. Equals trashing him and his words. Boomerangs on you. Disrespectful behavior we don't want on WP. --
724:
661:
879:. If you think a dab page is also needed, the onus is on you to provide evidence that there are other Ingegerds of Sweden.
759:. One or two editors alone cannot reach consensus. Learn it or eventually suffer the consequences. You were warned before,
132:
81:
497:
488:
is not what we do when there is an unresolved move discussion on the talk page. Please never do anything like that again!
1033:
798:
760:
69:
593:
442:
You are right, I don't know how I missed the context (twice). Sorry for the interruption, Greetings from Los Angeles.
317:
has been the customary English name of the city with special status, the modern transliteration of the Ukrainian name
283:
255:
485:
1054:
was tested for deletion years ago, but that failed, pre-Sundberg even, because there were citable news articles.
835:
you gave sources, but they don't seem to contain the claimed information at all. What am I to make out of that?
581:
872:
817:
786:
222:
708:
751:. This notice is about your behavior, not about any article content. We do not revert over and over without
99:, comparable to information theoretic concept of entropy, hence the UNDUE to which I referred to in my edit.
238:
160:
1082:
1029:
935:
921:
884:
840:
738:
676:
609:
548:
465:
433:
298:
195:
111:
242:
1039:
I have no COI whatsoever re: Dr. Sundberg. Dr. Sundberg did not publish the book. You seem to be acting
959:
Sundberg's preface in its entirety (in case you have trashed him & the book without ever seeing it):
1050:
38:
47:
17:
250:
136:
85:
652:. That is not allowed that on English Knowledge (as opposed to certain other Wikimedia projects).
1111:
1063:
998:
950:
862:
794:
768:
720:
690:
657:
627:
589:
563:
493:
358:
For any edge cases, or in case of doubt or dispute, an RfC or move request debate is recommended.
146:
369:
The following rule of thumb for determining what is current or historical was also established:
876:
622:. Ever. If you continue this behavior it will have to be reported for administrative review. --
234:
218:
1016:
Thanks for the quote. Since you want to defend the merits of this book against allegations of
733:
is not a policy. Please present your argument on the article talk page if you didn't already.
645:
450:
413:
400:
336:
discussion established the following guidance for whether to use Kyiv or Kiev in an article:
279:
1078:
1025:
931:
917:
880:
836:
813:
734:
672:
605:
544:
461:
429:
294:
191:
107:
428:. Surely the guideline does not imply that we should modify the titles of the references?
152:
131:
If you fail to see something as a major development, that may not be the ultimate truth!!
8:
226:
187:
183:
172:
373:
From October 1995 (Resolution of the Ukrainian Commission for Legal Terminology No. 5),
1107:
1097:
1059:
994:
946:
858:
809:
790:
764:
716:
686:
653:
623:
585:
559:
489:
229:
among editors. The best practice at this stage is to discuss, not edit-war; read about
96:
1020:
and are using it as a source despite your COI, I think we should have a discussion on
233:. If discussions reach an impasse, you can then post a request for help at a relevant
1017:
620:
do not change lead info from well-sourced and relevant items to your own personal POV
1048:. If that's really what & how you want to discuss, by all means. The article on
446:
409:
396:
275:
230:
291:
rv: per BOLD, *you* need to support your edits. You're repeatedly adding bullshit.
804:
If you think these moves are not based on the naming policy, then challenge them.
702:
668:
667:
Please calm down. I meant "offense" in the sense that what you wrote was against
639:
601:
267:—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly.
46:
If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the
389:
259:
168:
849:
This, again, is about your behavior as decribed in general terms - disrupting
808:
another issue here which I did not previously consider: The primary topic for
102:
To me, this looks as if you are trying to publicize this paper. Do you have a
1093:
1040:
1021:
754:
748:
730:
479:
362:
103:
539:
is another tradition which calls him Magnus I Ladulås. (e.g. Britannica and
854:
785:
Hello again! You've been very busy fixing names the way you want them. But
780:
649:
512:
763:
very clearly, yet you continue to do as you please. You must stop that. --
893:
A comment on the above: By ”total trashing” Serge might mean the change (
820:
so both of these names should be redirected there. Do you agree? All the
575:
540:
217:
Your recent editing history shows that you are currently engaged in an
509:
If possible, the page title should be the subject of the first sentence
205:
504:
329:", following a documented shift in usage in English-language media.
894:
916:
I find the first one quite pompous. Or do you mean something else?
210:
309:
Notice about Knowledge conventions regarding Ukrainian place names
377:
is presumptively appropriate subject to specifics of the article.
274:
restoring it. Starting a discussion is not license to edit-war.
258:, which states that an editor must not perform more than three
1136:
tags on this page, but the references will not show without a
1044:
book or anything in it, the hell with any doctor of history -
270:
When people revert your edits, you need to come to consensus
326:
558:
preferably later. I will be responding to that there. --
384:
is likely to be appropriate, but proceed with caution.
249:
Being involved in an edit war can result in you being
325:
resulted in that article being moved to the title "
241:. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary
125:
is different than the information theory ``entropy,
182:Feel free to edit, but please do not make another
857:. Others might also try to get through to you. --
671:. It's a content dispute. Nothing personal here.
289:Thanks for the template. From your edit summary:
120:What is the qualifier for the adjective ``notable
265:even if you do not violate the three-revert rule
225:to work toward making a version that represents
390:Knowledge conventions regarding Ukrainian names
340:For unambiguously current/ongoing topics (e.g.
380:From 24 August 1991 (Ukrainian independence),
980:Autumn of 2019, Ulf Sundberg, PhD and author.
644:You accusation using the word "offense" at
361:In all cases, name changes must follow the
351:For unambiguously historical topics (e.g.
648:can only be reasonably interpreted as a
14:
44:Do not edit the contents of this page.
747:Nobody inferred anything here about
25:
1128:
871:I've now redirected those pages to
186:. It is surprising if a link (e.g.
23:
355:), do not change existing content.
209:
151:I'm not sure if I agree with your
24:
1156:
29:
831:Also, while we are discussing:
254:—especially if you violate the
873:Ingegerd Olofsdotter of Sweden
818:Ingegerd Olofsdotter of Sweden
600:POV, which you justified with
13:
1:
200:08:33, 14 December 2023 (UTC)
177:08:21, 14 December 2023 (UTC)
1022:reliable sources noticeboard
303:13:18, 17 January 2024 (UTC)
284:09:47, 17 January 2024 (UTC)
161:Bound state in the continuum
7:
405:16:10, 29 March 2024 (UTC)
10:
1161:
1051:Throne of a Thousand Years
568:08:56, 28 April 2024 (UTC)
553:20:39, 27 April 2024 (UTC)
498:14:22, 27 April 2024 (UTC)
470:09:03, 30 March 2024 (UTC)
456:20:10, 29 March 2024 (UTC)
438:16:55, 29 March 2024 (UTC)
419:16:10, 29 March 2024 (UTC)
141:22:14, 30 April 2023 (UTC)
116:07:08, 4 August 2022 (UTC)
90:21:51, 2 August 2022 (UTC)
392:for further information.
1116:19:23, 6 June 2024 (UTC)
1102:11:13, 6 June 2024 (UTC)
1087:06:54, 5 June 2024 (UTC)
1068:16:52, 4 June 2024 (UTC)
1034:04:43, 4 June 2024 (UTC)
1003:20:29, 3 June 2024 (UTC)
955:19:52, 3 June 2024 (UTC)
940:20:05, 2 June 2024 (UTC)
926:19:49, 2 June 2024 (UTC)
889:18:01, 2 June 2024 (UTC)
867:17:07, 2 June 2024 (UTC)
845:20:30, 1 June 2024 (UTC)
799:10:18, 1 June 2024 (UTC)
773:10:58, 24 May 2024 (UTC)
743:10:10, 24 May 2024 (UTC)
725:10:03, 24 May 2024 (UTC)
695:19:22, 11 May 2024 (UTC)
681:17:22, 11 May 2024 (UTC)
662:17:16, 11 May 2024 (UTC)
632:17:12, 11 May 2024 (UTC)
614:13:39, 11 May 2024 (UTC)
594:12:07, 11 May 2024 (UTC)
1134:<ref group=note: -->
822:results at Google Books
18:User talk:Jähmefyysikko
1138:{{reflist|group=note}}
982:
753:first trying to reach
517:Magnus III Birgersson
214:
970:
757:on article talk pages
213:
42:of past discussions.
507:, which states that
460:No worries. Cheers,
353:Principality of Kiev
251:blocked from editing
147:Edit in Bound states
646:Talk:Magnus Ladulås
127:the ``beam entropy.
77:why did you delete
70:why did you delete
1140:template (see the
814:Ingegärd of Sweden
810:Ingegerd of Sweden
239:dispute resolution
215:
97:History of entropy
580:You did it again
332:An RfC closed on
323:16 September 2020
256:three-revert rule
159:The definiton of
67:
66:
54:
53:
48:current talk page
1152:
1147:
1146:
1145:
1139:
1135:
454:
417:
404:
383:
376:
354:
347:
343:
334:11 November 2020
231:how this is done
63:
56:
55:
33:
32:
26:
1160:
1159:
1155:
1154:
1153:
1151:
1150:
1149:
1137:
1133:
1131:
1129:
1046:you know better
877:WP:PRIMARYTOPIC
783:
705:
650:personal attack
642:
578:
482:
443:
406:
393:
381:
374:
352:
345:
341:
311:
243:page protection
208:
149:
75:
59:
30:
22:
21:
20:
12:
11:
5:
1158:
1127:
1125:
1124:
1123:
1122:
1121:
1120:
1119:
1118:
1077:more sources.
1074:
1055:
1014:
1013:
1012:
1011:
1010:
1009:
1008:
1007:
1006:
1005:
969:
968:
967:
966:
965:
964:
963:
962:
961:
960:
957:
914:
913:
912:
905:
891:
829:
826:
805:
782:
779:
778:
777:
776:
775:
704:
701:
700:
699:
698:
697:
641:
638:
637:
636:
635:
634:
604:, an offence?
577:
574:
573:
572:
571:
570:
536:
481:
478:
477:
476:
475:
474:
473:
472:
386:
385:
378:
367:
366:
359:
356:
349:
310:
307:
306:
305:
207:
204:
203:
202:
148:
145:
144:
143:
133:193.174.122.76
129:
118:
100:
82:193.174.122.76
74:
68:
65:
64:
52:
51:
34:
15:
9:
6:
4:
3:
2:
1157:
1148:
1143:
1117:
1113:
1109:
1108:SergeWoodzing
1105:
1104:
1103:
1099:
1095:
1090:
1089:
1088:
1084:
1080:
1079:Jähmefyysikko
1075:
1071:
1070:
1069:
1065:
1061:
1060:SergeWoodzing
1056:
1053:
1052:
1047:
1042:
1038:
1037:
1036:
1035:
1031:
1027:
1026:Jähmefyysikko
1023:
1019:
1004:
1000:
996:
995:SergeWoodzing
992:
991:
990:
989:
988:
987:
986:
985:
984:
983:
981:
978:
974:
958:
956:
952:
948:
947:SergeWoodzing
943:
942:
941:
937:
933:
932:Jähmefyysikko
929:
928:
927:
923:
919:
918:Jähmefyysikko
915:
911:
906:
904:
899:
898:
896:
892:
890:
886:
882:
881:Jähmefyysikko
878:
874:
870:
869:
868:
864:
860:
859:SergeWoodzing
856:
852:
848:
847:
846:
842:
838:
837:Jähmefyysikko
834:
830:
827:
823:
819:
815:
811:
806:
803:
802:
801:
800:
796:
792:
791:SergeWoodzing
788:
774:
770:
766:
765:SergeWoodzing
762:
758:
756:
750:
746:
745:
744:
740:
736:
735:Jähmefyysikko
732:
729:
728:
727:
726:
722:
718:
717:SergeWoodzing
713:
710:
696:
692:
688:
687:SergeWoodzing
684:
683:
682:
678:
674:
673:Jähmefyysikko
670:
666:
665:
664:
663:
659:
655:
654:SergeWoodzing
651:
647:
633:
629:
625:
624:SergeWoodzing
621:
617:
616:
615:
611:
607:
606:Jähmefyysikko
603:
598:
597:
596:
595:
591:
587:
586:SergeWoodzing
583:
569:
565:
561:
560:SergeWoodzing
556:
555:
554:
550:
546:
545:Jähmefyysikko
542:
537:
534:
530:
526:
522:
518:
514:
510:
506:
502:
501:
500:
499:
495:
491:
490:SergeWoodzing
487:
471:
467:
463:
462:Jähmefyysikko
459:
458:
457:
453:
452:
448:
441:
440:
439:
435:
431:
430:Jähmefyysikko
427:
423:
422:
421:
420:
416:
415:
411:
403:
402:
398:
391:
379:
372:
371:
370:
364:
360:
357:
350:
348:is preferred.
339:
338:
337:
335:
330:
328:
324:
320:
316:
304:
300:
296:
295:Jähmefyysikko
292:
288:
287:
286:
285:
281:
277:
273:
268:
266:
261:
257:
253:
252:
246:
244:
240:
236:
232:
228:
224:
220:
212:
201:
197:
193:
192:Jähmefyysikko
189:
185:
181:
180:
179:
178:
174:
170:
165:
162:
157:
154:
142:
138:
134:
130:
128:
124:
119:
117:
113:
109:
108:Jähmefyysikko
105:
101:
98:
94:
93:
92:
91:
87:
83:
80:
79:beam entropy?
73:
72:beam entropy?
62:
58:
57:
49:
45:
41:
40:
35:
28:
27:
19:
1130:Cite error:
1126:
1049:
1045:
1041:vindictively
1015:
979:
975:
971:
908:
901:
855:Ulf Sundberg
850:
816:seems to be
784:
752:
711:
706:
703:May 2024 (3)
643:
640:May 2024 (2)
619:
579:
532:
528:
524:
520:
516:
513:MOS:FULLNAME
508:
483:
444:
407:
394:
388:Please read
387:
368:
331:
318:
314:
312:
290:
271:
269:
264:
248:
247:
216:
184:WP:EASTEREGG
166:
158:
150:
126:
121:
78:
76:
71:
60:
43:
37:
235:noticeboard
153:latest edit
36:This is an
1132:There are
1018:WP:SELFPUB
529:Birgersson
480:April 2024
342:Kyiv Metro
1142:help page
1073:personal.
903:Sundberg.
781:June 2024
755:consensus
709:re-revert
505:MOS:FIRST
227:consensus
223:talk page
188:continuum
169:Roffaduft
61:Archive 1
1094:Chrisahn
669:WP:SYNTH
602:WP:SYNTH
576:May 2024
263:warring—
237:or seek
219:edit war
618:Please
533:Ladulås
521:Ladulås
484:Hello!
447:Timothy
410:Timothy
397:Timothy
313:Whilst
276:— kwami
260:reverts
206:Warning
123:entropy
39:archive
900:from:
825:page.)
749:WP:BRD
731:WP:BRD
541:SNL.no
531:, and
525:Magnus
365:cycle.
363:WP:BRD
272:before
104:WP:COI
910:2016.
712:after
16:<
1112:talk
1098:talk
1083:talk
1064:talk
1030:talk
999:talk
951:talk
936:talk
922:talk
907:to:
895:diff
885:talk
875:per
863:talk
841:talk
833:Here
795:talk
787:here
769:talk
761:here
739:talk
721:talk
691:talk
677:talk
658:talk
628:talk
610:talk
590:talk
582:here
564:talk
549:talk
494:talk
486:This
466:talk
451:talk
434:talk
426:diff
414:talk
401:talk
382:Kyiv
375:Kyiv
346:Kyiv
327:Kyiv
319:Kyiv
315:Kiev
299:talk
280:talk
196:talk
173:talk
137:talk
112:talk
106:? --
86:talk
707:We
449:::
445://
412:::
408://
399:::
395://
344:),
245:.
1144:).
1114:)
1100:)
1085:)
1066:)
1058:--
1032:)
1001:)
993:--
953:)
938:)
924:)
897:)
887:)
865:)
843:)
797:)
771:)
741:)
723:)
693:)
679:)
660:)
630:)
612:)
592:)
566:)
551:)
527:,
496:)
468:)
436:)
301:)
282:)
198:)
175:)
139:)
114:)
88:)
1110:(
1096:(
1081:(
1062:(
1028:(
997:(
949:(
934:(
920:(
883:(
861:(
839:(
812:/
793:(
767:(
737:(
719:(
689:(
675:(
656:(
626:(
608:(
588:(
562:(
547:(
519:"
492:(
464:(
432:(
297:(
278:(
194:(
171:(
135:(
110:(
84:(
50:.
Text is available under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License. Additional terms may apply.
