I'd appreciate your comments and copy editing to this new article.-- Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk 23:13, 29 July 2007 (UTC)
Your additions to the article are good, but I don't think that any claims of being "the most powerful" are encyclopaedic enough for Wikipedia. These are just words thrown about from nationalist perspectives, and there are no facts to substantiate them if we talk about the Middle Ages. There is no way of knowing who was more "powerful" - Danylo or, say, Alexander Nevsky - because these guys never engaged in combat. I suggest we avoid peacock epithets in the future. -- Ghirla -трёп- 16:20, 23 August 2007 (UTC)
Faustian. Please keep an eye on the K uban c ossack article. The information is very Russophilic. All my edits regarding the Ukraininess of the c ossacks has been edited out, as have all aspects of Ukrainian language and culture there. Recently the addition of the article to the category of Ukrainian population groups was removed despite the fact that Ukrainian c ossacks settled there 200 years ago and Ukrainian is still spoken on the streets. Bandurist 15:23, 22 September 2007 (UTC)
Lets do it like that. If in 32 hours you still have a majority, i stop removing the categories. M.V.E.i. 21:44, 25 September 2007 (UTC)
There has been some activity on the Cossacks page. I have made a number of edits regarding the use of Muscovy and Muscovite. The term Russia is often incorrectly used and is anachronistic as the term only went into use after the Reign of Peter I. Could you please review my corrections. Thanks Bandurist 06:02, 26 September 2007 (UTC)
Easy tiger, steady as she goes, if everyone stays calm we might get a consensus. Which would be really good, yes? MarkAnthonyBoyle 15:06, 1 October 2007 (UTC) All quiet on the western front.... fingers crossed eh? MarkAnthonyBoyle 10:42, 2 October 2007 (UTC) Oh well, there goes the neighbourhood, looks like it's off again! shame MarkAnthonyBoyle 00:32, 3 October 2007 (UTC)
User:Kuban kazak/Ukrainian architecture, it only is a draft, but with good input we can make it an FA within days, care to be part of the team? -- Kuban Cossack 19:11, 15 October 2007 (UTC)
Hi, I just want to say that I am very glad we have avoided edit wars concerning this delicate subject. As you have noticed, I am expanding this article, not to incite hatred, but to inform readers about these events. I do appreciate your help, and what is left for us to do now is to live peacefully and do our best to avoid such massacres in the future. I do not hold any personal grudge against Ukrainians, but these events need to be described just like Holocaust. Greetings. Tymek 18:28, 16 October 2007 (UTC)
You had changed it before, but all sources I possess state that the massacres were initiated by Ukrainians (including Davies and Snyder). Operation Vistula, a shameful event, was started by the Poles, but it is a different story. Poles in Volhynia, outnumbered 6 to 1, would have been suicidal if they had started the massacres first. Greetings and I am always open for discussion, if you have sources that state differently, let me know. Thank you Tymek 19:26, 17 October 2007 (UTC)
He further states Hernyk Josewski (Wspomnienia "Zeszyty historyczne' Paryz, 1982 nr 60 s. 72) stated that the true population was made up of Ukrainains 80%. Poles 16%. Significant numbers of Jews lived in the cities. There were some Russians and Czechs and Germans. Education was in a terrible state. In the middle schools 344 (14%) Ukrainian to 2599 Poles. Of the 80 Ukrainians who qualified to get into Tertiary studies only 3 were accepted in 1938/9. (p.40)
In 1926 at a conference regarding the Ukrainian problem the Polish minister of religion and education Antoni Sujkowski stated that that Volyn was 80% Ukrainian. (Siwicki p.63) In 1926 the Polish Policy called the Volyn program was announced for the state assymilation of Volyn by Josewski. The "Sokalski" administrative border was set up to stop the dissemination of literature from Halychyna to Volyn.
Skorowidz miejscowosc Rzeczpospolitej Polskiej wedlug spisu z 30.IX.1921 r. wojewodstwo Wolynskie
gives for the whole of Volyn: Roman Catholics - 1,666,512 Orthodox - 1,066,842 Poles - 240,922 Rusyns - 983,596
Siwicki (p 182) questions where 74, 410 Poles had appeared who were not Roman Catholic. From the statistics Siwicki states thatthe accuracy of the census is indoubt. Bandurist 01:12, 18 October 2007 (UTC)
![]() |
For Bravery - 3rd degree | |
You are hereby awarded this Ukrainian National Award "For Bravery" in recognition of your contributions to Ukraine-related historical articles, insistence on credibly sourced statements, and fight against vandalism. Salut!-- Riurik (discuss) 22:58, 30 October 2007 (UTC) |
The disruptive anon user's IP (83.22.185.31) is from Wawelno, Opolskie region in Poland. For the next two weeks, anonymous vandalism should not be a problem, and focus can be shifted to constructive edits instead of police work.--
Riurik
(discuss)
22:58, 30 October 2007 (UTC)
I hope you have read the recent discussion on Irpen's talk page, (read if you didn't). Anyway overall I am very pleased with our work on the section and your final edit summary is very much welcomed. Now that that is settled, I wish to move onto the actual article which shares the title of the section. Realising that one editor will be very sensistive to the issue, I don't wish to carry out any edits there just yet, but I want us to agree on what to do with that article now. The question is do we need it? We already have a comprehensive section with Ukrainians in Russia. Of course we can futher broaden it so that it fully encompases whatever information that is true from that article, and that is not a collection of POV nonsense ( which I trust even you see just how absurd some of the sections there look,). Ideally that would be the case. We can also do a History of the Kuban, so that some information will overlap, we can further expand the Kuban Cossacks, and generally the Demographics sections on the article about Krasnodar Kray. A special note on Ukrainization, Balachka and Ukrainian language could be expanded. My point is that our section on the Ukrainians in Russia is broad enough and remember you can actually point the reader to the right article's respective section using the same ref citation except instead of the refrence itself add , /"see also that at [this#that|this]"/. What do you think? -- Kuban Cossack 17:24, 13 November 2007 (UTC)
Dear Faustian. As we have always edited peacefully, I am just saying this here - at Roman Dmowski you have broken the WP:3RR rule. Please consider self-reverting. I don't indent to report you at WP:ANI/3RR since I know you are editing in good faith, but breaking 3RR is a bad habit.-- Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk 06:48, 10 December 2007 (UTC)
Sorry. I thought that I was careful about making changes rather than mere reverts before reaching the third revert. Faustian ( talk) 15:03, 10 December 2007 (UTC)
I mentioned elsewhere some time ago that the Ukraine article in EB was written by Taras Kuzio. In fact, it was my memory glitch. Most of the UA history was written by Lubomyr Hajda from Harvard. Sorry for misleading you. -- Irpen 08:28, 19 December 2007 (UTC)
You may be right, although it's probably not doing any more damage than the website that caused the most recent controversy with User:MilesAgain. He was demanding details and insisting on adding inaccurate information about a website that does a tremendous disservice to anyone who visits it in hopes of learning how to respond on the Rorscach. I think listing the coding sequence without additional details (something I did hesitate to to do) does far less damage. Simply exposing the images, as the website and so many Wikipedia editors are hell-bent on doing, surely does far more damage to the naive reader. And Exner's books are available for anyone to read. But your question is a good one that I have kept and will keep in mind as I edit. I'm trying to balance some very conflicting ethical issues that have been created by a controversial test that falls prey to inflammatory Wikipedia editors. Let's face it: any potential test-taker who looks for details on Wikipedia and its links is probably in jeopardy of an invalid administration. Thanks for the thoughtful question. I am always open to reasonable discussion. Ward3001 ( talk) 14:02, 19 December 2007 (UTC)
Please, stop changing article about Roman Dmowski as u do now by adding such as information about his "homosexuality" what is not true or you will be banned for vandalism. Thank you.
-- Krzyzowiec ( talk) 19:07, 5 January 2008 (UTC)
Information stays and is not vandalism. Faustian ( talk) 23:36, 5 January 2008 (UTC)
Thank you for your cooperation with the article on Massacres in Volhynia. Good job, Tymek ( talk) 05:16, 15 January 2008 (UTC)
In the intruduction to Vladimir Vernadsky i wrote: was a Russian mineralogist and geochemist whose ideas of noosphere were an important contribution to the Russian cosmism of mixed Russian and Ukrainian ethnicity. Shpakovich ( talk) 17:31, 17 January 2008 (UTC)
So why did you revert? You said you cant delete the fact that he was half Ukrainian, while i i did was adding the fact he was half Russian. Shpakovich ( talk) 17:31, 17 January 2008 (UTC)
I wont revert you because if you wrote something i guess you have a reason for that, but i do think i should ask it: The link i gave states only he was again independent and considered himself Russian, could you please explain where is it written he also considered himself a Ukrainian? Shpakovich ( talk) 17:33, 17 January 2008 (UTC)
Faustian I think what happened at Balachka in my absence is absolutely unacceptable, I am keen to go for a full RfC, will you support me, or be involved. I don't mind discussing issues but this has gone too far. -- Kuban Cossack 12:24, 18 January 2008 (UTC)
Hey, could you tell me what page the cartoon that you mentioned earlier is on in the Ukrainians Unexpected Nation book? I have the book, but haven't yet gotten around to reading it. Thanks, Ostap 21:48, 21 January 2008 (UTC)
I have removed most links added by User:KKonstantin per 'What wikipedia is not', and several also per the external links guideline. For the former, wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a linkfarm, for the latter, links to documents hosted on unreliable sources as imageshack may be in violation of WP:COPYRIGHT, they look reproductions of official documents and may very well be under copyright.
The main question is, why do they link in the external links sections, why not upload a/some suitable picture(s) and actually discuss the issue. That would be more encyclopedia than adding complete linkfarms. I hope this explains my removal of all these links, and I suggest, as I have suggested User:KKonstantin to discuss the issue on the talkpages first instead of unilateral re-adding the images. See you around. -- Dirk Beetstra T C 14:18, 23 January 2008 (UTC)
...Because he's always right, and everyone else is wrong.-- Riurik (discuss) 06:11, 29 January 2008 (UTC)
I would need to check sources for more details, but some things I remember right off are: UPA was fighting against Germans mostly throughout 1943 and has entered into armistice in the end of 1943, while both Nazis and UPA continued fighting against Poles. UPA was also receiving weapons, ammunition and other equipment and supplies from the Nazis throughout 1944. In return UPA agreed to secure certain mountain passes in Carpathians for the Germans. So both parties provided services to each other. And through conducting military operations for Germans, UPA actively collaborated with the occupier forces. The collaboration ended only in the beginning of 1945. What do you think ? -- Lysy talk 23:03, 2 February 2008 (UTC)
Maybe it's a matter of terminology then. And Point Of View of course. For example according to international law, UPA partisans were citizens of occupied Poland. Anyway, for the record, some facts that I found in a reasonable (Polish) source. I don't want to put them all into the article, it's for your information only. UPA provided Germans with intelligence. For example provided Gestapo with information about Polish communist Gwardia Ludowa in Lviv region. On December 9 1943 UPA made an agreement with Germans in Volodymyr-Volynskyi (confirmed on December 20) about cooperation in fighting Polish 27th Home Army Infantry Division. As I mentioned before UPA was also often armed by Germans. On March 5 1944 UPA proposed their "unconditional and full loyalty" to the Germans. On March 12 1944 UPA again agreed to provide intelligence for Germans, who in turn supported creating UPA structures in Nazi-controlled territories. Also in March Germans in Galicia cooperated with UPA units against Polish population (and against Soviet partisans). On April 2 1944 the head of Volhynian UPA again promised Germans delivering intelligence materials in return for German arms. The results of cooperation with UPA were highly rated in German reports. In September Germans asked UPA to secure certain mountain passes in Carpathians against the Soviets, which UPA did. In return Germans agreed to release captured UPA and OUN members. In Bukovina UPA coordinated their actions with German 7th Division. In December 1944 UPA recaptured several groups of German POV from Soviets, and transferred them to German Army. So certainly there was cooperation, and military or intelligence cooperation with the occupiers is collaboration. -- Lysy talk 18:21, 4 February 2008 (UTC)
Yes, I think there could be also an article explaining the Ukrainian-Polish relations during World War II. The Massacre of Poles in Volyn covers one side of the story only. But this would be a really difficult article to write and to maintain. -- Lysy talk 19:13, 4 February 2008 (UTC)
Of course, this depends largely on POV. The fact that Western Ukrainians were in the eyes of the west citizens of Poland e.g allowed Anders to save soldiers of SS Galicia from being deported to Soviet Union. Anyway, from the Polish perspective they were helping the Germans against Poles, and against AK, which was the Polish Army legally recognized by the western allies. Of course UPA perspective was clearly different. As for the Finns, they were not collaborating in the sense that Germans were not considered occupants but ally of Finland up to certain moment. The Finns did not even let the Germans cross Finland to attack Soviet Union. Anyway, I don't want to trash your talk page with overly-long discussions. Thanks. -- Lysy talk 19:59, 4 February 2008 (UTC)
You should be aware that a Request for Arbitration has been filed on the above article, which lists you as an Involved Party. You may review and participate in the Arbitration at WP:RFARB#Ukrainian Insurgent Army; please visit that page and make your statement, which will then be considered by the Arbitrators before they make a decision to accept or decline the Request.
Information on Arbitration is available at Wikipedia:Arbitration, and Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/How to present a case provides material that you may be interested in reading at your leisure. Cheers, Anthøny 16:51, 7 February 2008 (UTC)
Please check this out: Controversy regarding the Nachtigall Battalion
and also check out http://memorial.kiev.ua/content/view/539/149/ amazing materials. Thanks Bandurist ( talk) 21:40, 9 February 2008 (UTC)
Hey have a read here [4], also have a look at the link I posted at Talk:Holodomor (very bottom). How would you go about this? -- Kuban Cossack 20:51, 12 February 2008 (UTC)
![]() |
The Epic Barnstar | |
For "particularly fine" contributions to historical entries, continued commitment to veracity, and extensive coverage of topics related to Ukraine, you are hereby awarded this Barnstar.-- Riurik (discuss) 22:57, 12 February 2008 (UTC) |
Thanks! Faustian ( talk) 22:58, 12 February 2008 (UTC)
Congratulations! I am sorry, I am way behind your discussions with JoeDoe. But I can't help notice their getting angry sometimes. Please try your best to avoid discussing him. He is "no bargain" (my dictionary translates Russian "не подарок" that way) but we can't deny that he brings a lot of useful sources. I asked him at his talk too to cut it and he does not take my request graciously, but well, let's lead by example. Cheers and congratulations again. -- Irpen 00:41, 13 February 2008 (UTC)
I warned Joe again. BTW, you should take a cup of tea every time you are provoked, whether by Joe or by another user. Never ever give anyone an excuse to paint you what you are not. This is a frequently used trick in content disputes. Thanks for your efforts. -- Irpen 21:39, 22 April 2008 (UTC)
Wikipedia doesn't normally use disclaimers & one is advised to remove them on sight. нмŵוτн τ 04:35, 19 February 2008 (UTC)
Can you write a legacy section to finish off my newly expanded article on the Danubian Sich. -- Kuban Cossack 15:50, 21 February 2008 (UTC)
Care to examine that one as well? Can you re-read Bachinskaya's refrence to see if there are any facts that I left out? I know that unlike the one above it is far less significant in terms of the historic role it had to play, but nonetheless Cossacks deserve attention. -- Kuban Cossack 20:52, 13 March 2008 (UTC) You might also want to look at this. -- Kuban Cossack 21:08, 13 March 2008 (UTC)
Dear Faustian your actions in Articles Holodomor and Ukrainian Insurgent Army decribed as WP:Vandalism - blanking. Also you recent edits "Now you are cherry-picking wikipedia's policies";"You don't base this on any of the secondary sources" ; your unreferenced claims and speculations, as typical ;Your poor grasp of the English language is obvious ; you lie by ommission; That's just your POV - I assume as personal attack. However you add to article like "popuIts growth and strength reflected its popularity among the western Ukrainian people", On July 26, 1944, near the village of Nedilna, the UPA defeated another German division, and captured its entire supply column, including many officers and soldiers \In November 1943, UPA battle groups Black Forest and Makivka defeated 12 German battalions supported by the German air-force, in a battle over control of UPA-held territory.UPA's membership is estimated to have consisted of 60% peasants or low to moderate means, 20-25% workers, and 15% from the intelligensia (students, urban professionals). The latter group provided a large portion of UPA's military trainers and officer corps.[9] Sixty percent of UPA's membership was from Galicia and 30% from Volhynia and Podolia etc decrebed as Deception Jo0doe ( talk) 09:15, 24 February 2008 (UTC)
Hopefully not a bother, but I just noticed your userpage has a redlinked image that seems to have been deleted at some point ( log says there's an identical image on Commons). The deleted revision looks very similar to Image:WikiOgre2.png. If you were newer I might just go ahead and replace it, but as is I'll just bring that to your attention. Cheers. – Luna Santin ( talk) 00:46, 27 February 2008 (UTC)
Hey there. I noticed you keep making the comparison between scientists who dispute the Rorschach's effectiveness to scientists who dispute mankind as the catalyst for global warming. They're both valid points of view, but as the minority, their respective articles only mention them in passing, which is fair per WP:NPOV. However, you then go on to equate intelligent design proponents with global warming opponents. This doesn't seem accurate, and seems like you're trying to single out a specific group by tacking on additional things you think they're wrong about (namely the conservative Christian scientific community). I'm sure there are plenty of atheistic, pro-evolution scientists out there who do not believe that global warming is man-made, and that they are not even the minority. Coreycubed ( talk) 18:54, 27 February 2008 (UTC)
"It seems the compromise issue is heating up again... Faustian 19:06, 27 February 2008 (UTC)"
The case for not showing the original inkblots needs your feedback. You could maybe add some references.-- Dela Rabadilla ( talk) 02:31, 18 March 2008 (UTC)
While I disagree with your basic position in regards to the inkblot issue, you do put that position across very well and if you have the time would appreciate your input here. I'm not looking to rehash the inkblot issues but rather think that a general discussion about the broader issues around the use of medical and other factual material would be of benefit to the community. -- Fredrick day ( talk) 21:06, 27 February 2008 (UTC)
I am removing myself from this discussion based on your incivility and personal attacks. I hope that you, in the future, keep to discussing the article in question and away from the editors who edit it. Thanks, нмŵוτн τ 20:39, 28 February 2008 (UTC)
You currently appear to be engaged in an
edit war according to the reverts you have made on
Rorschach inkblot test. Note that the
three-revert rule prohibits making more than three reversions in a content dispute within a 24 hour period. Additionally, users who perform a large number of reversions in content disputes may be blocked for edit warring, even if they do not technically violate the
three-revert rule. If you continue, you may be
blocked from editing. Please do not repeatedly revert edits, but use the talk page to work towards wording and content that gains a
consensus among editors. If necessary, pursue
dispute resolution.
нмŵוτн
τ
20:36, 29 February 2008 (UTC)
Hi, concerning this edit — would you have a source to reference this ? I am not implying that what you wrote is incorrect, quite the opposite — since this is the center of the current discussion, I'd be interested in knowing more about this. I did not want to tag your edit {{ refneeded}} since this may have been seen as agressive in the current context (this, and the fact that the page is protected, obviously). Thanks in advance if you have any information. Schutz ( talk) 20:54, 1 March 2008 (UTC)
That's an interesting point. I'm not sure if I have actually read that prior exposure jeopardizes test validity, or if I was just taught that. I think it sometimes depends on the motivation of the examinee. As I'm sure you know, some variables have high test-retest reliability, so obviously prior viewing in those situations has little effect. But if the examinee is trying to engage in impression management (e.g., a forensic case), prior exposure could make a big difference.
We might be hard pressed to find a source besides Exner to support potential invalidity from prior exposure, but I'll look when I go to my office on Monday.
Ward3001 (
talk)
21:29, 2 March 2008 (UTC)
Please make a comment Bandurist ( talk) 03:04, 3 March 2008 (UTC)
An editor has nominated Ivan Rohach, an article on which you have worked or that you created, for deletion. We appreciate your contributions, but the nominator doesn't believe that the article satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion and has explained why in his/her nomination (see also " What Wikipedia is not").
Your opinions on whether the article meets inclusion criteria and what should be done with the article are welcome; please participate in the discussion by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ivan Rohach and please be sure to sign your comments with four tildes (~~~~).
![]() |
The Barnstar for Manga reading Canadian wood-cutters! | |
congratulations. You deserve it. Ostap 01:31, 5 March 2008 (UTC) |
LOL. Thanks... Faustian ( talk) 04:52, 5 March 2008 (UTC)
A tag has been placed on Sluzhba Bezbeky, requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under the criteria for speedy deletion, because it is a very short article providing little or no context to the reader. Please see Wikipedia:Stub for our minimum information standards for short articles. Also please note that articles must be on notable subjects and should provide references to reliable sources that verify their content.
Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself. If you plan to expand the article, you can request that
administrators wait a while for you to add contextual material. To do this, affix the template {{
hangon}}
to the article and state your intention on the article's
talk page. Feel free to leave a note on my talk page if you have any questions about this. Blanchardb-
Me•
MyEars•
MyMouth-timed
20:02, 13 March 2008 (UTC)
I hereby award you the both halves of the, so called, "Half Barnstar" whose name should not mislead anyone into being anything but a full award. This is "for your excellence in Cooperation, especially for productive editing together with someone who holds diametrically opposed or simply different viewpoints". There are many articles where you displayed such attitude but what particularly stands out is your ability to work with Jo0Doe through finding a significant constructive part in his often erratic edits and ignoring the outbursts. Please keep up the good work and continue not allowing yourself to be dragged into the shouting matches! I know how difficult it is with opponents of certain temper. Thank you for your patience and contributions. -- Irpen 08:46, 16 March 2008 (UTC)
Re JoeDoe, I notice that you take pains in incorporating whatever is salvageable from his edits into the article's text. I believe the same should be done with his sources "procurement" and other info for the Holodomor article. I understand that people may not always have time to rework his edits to make encyclopedic content out of them, but this is what eventually needs to be done rather than this two-months long slow edit war. What do you think? (P.S. I am not saying that it is your job to do. I am just speaking in general here.) -- Irpen 23:57, 27 March 2008 (UTC)
Лучше поздно чем никогда. If you have not noticed, I am bringing this to light. BTW I think you might wish to reconsider your opinion of Gladky, have a look his grave is located right next Zaporozhian State University, where he died as a retired General in 1866? The fact that his descendants have made prominance in the following years also separates his fate from others. The character deserves films and memorials. Incidently the descendants of the Azov host (the first two regiments here) have recently suggested to rename one of the Stanitsas in his honour, there are definitely an Ulitsa Osipa Gladkogo in most of them. -- Kuban Cossack 14:57, 31 March 2008 (UTC)
Just to let you know that I fully agree with this edit of yours.
On a different topic, I am going to make a strongest effort to carry a message to Joe about the tone of his entries. He used up his quota of patience and, frankly, I admire your ability to ignore his offenses and just keep editing. You have no obligation to tolerate such a row of persistence attacks and I will now vigorously watch this.
Also, please take a look at the questions about sources of the Famine article. I am interested in your opinion and if you need a full version of the paper emailed to you, you just need to ask. Cheers, -- Irpen 23:56, 2 April 2008 (UTC)
OK, here is what we know now. Vallin's group are professional demographers of impeccable respectability and we are not (at least I am not) familiar with any other thorough demographic research of the number of victims specifically for Ukraine published in peer-reviewed literature. So, here are the sources that we can check:
Here is what I see. Source one appears a very thorough work. It is published in the world's leading demography peer-reviewed journal. The work is sufficiently detailed and puts all the data and calculations on the table. All math they use is within the means of my comprehension and I've read it in full. Work concludes with:
Source 2:
What we actually need is to access and read the French paper. Something I cannot do.
On top of these two numbers (2.2 and 2.6 mln from the same author) we have the calculation of Kulchytsky in Zerkalo Nedeli ( ru version, ua version).
Now, ZN is not a peer-reviewed publication and Kulchytsky is not a demographer while he is certainly an academic scholar (a historian.) Also, his calculation is rather simplistic. While Vallin's group takes the same data and makes a forward projection (and backward projection) from the known census results, Kulchytsky uses the same data (as seen from the work) and simply assigns an entire deficit of unaccounted deaths to the 1933 famine (it is all easy to see). The latest observation by me or any other person may not have much value, while the relative authority of ZN vs Population studies and peer-reviewed vs non obviously matters. Now, the question is what do we do with this situation as far as the lead is concerned? Please let me know what you think. -- Irpen 04:44, 3 April 2008 (UTC)
"::Mortality and causes of death in Ukraine at the XXe century by
Thank you for uploading Image:100 0810.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. NOTE: once you correct this, please remove the tag from the image's page. STBotI ( talk) 03:59, 5 April 2008 (UTC)
Please refrain from such violations of WP:LIVING and related policies; in any case, who is this "nationalist"? Professor Ryszard Szawłowski, or Władysław Siemaszko/ Ewa Siemaszko? The review of their work by professor Szawłowski, which is linked here, is rather positive. The book was reviewed here, the review is mixed and does note a certain bias. But there is nothing to suggest such a strong attacks as you've added to the article.-- Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk 20:57, 22 April 2008 (UTC)
Nice source Piotrus added indeed. But, Faustian, the best way to go is to remove this stuff from the links list rather than opinionize about it. The source is junk and can be used in the article about authors (if they are deemed notable.) -- Irpen 21:34, 22 April 2008 (UTC)
Hi Faustian!
We thank you for uploading
Image:100 0810.JPG, but there is a problem. Your image is currently missing information on its copyright status. Wikipedia takes
copyright very seriously. Unless you can help by adding a
copyright tag, it may be
deleted by an
Administrator. If you know this information, then we urge you to add a
copyright tag to the
image description page. We apologize for this, but all images must confirm to policy on Wikipedia.
If you have any questions, please feel free to ask them at the
media copyright questions page. Thanks so much for your cooperation.
This message is from a
robot. --
John Bot III (
talk)
17:22, 24 April 2008 (UTC)
Hi Faustian!
We thank you for uploading
Image:AubrunStateRecreationArea.JPG, but there is a problem. Your image is currently missing information on its copyright status. Wikipedia takes
copyright very seriously. Unless you can help by adding a
copyright tag, it may be
deleted by an
Administrator. If you know this information, then we urge you to add a
copyright tag to the
image description page. We apologize for this, but all images must confirm to policy on Wikipedia.
If you have any questions, please feel free to ask them at the
media copyright questions page. Thanks so much for your cooperation.
This message is from a
robot. --
John Bot III (
talk)
16:43, 25 April 2008 (UTC)
Happy Easter from the homeland! -- Irpen 08:05, 29 April 2008 (UTC)
Hello, Faustian!
Thanks for your message. I left a message for
Opinoso (
talk ·
contribs)
here where I asked him to stop calling editors racist and to discuss the ongiong dispute at the pertinent article. Even though Opinoso is not really participating overly constructively in the talk page discussions and he's making
personal attacks, I will still ask you to please be careful about breaching
WP:3RR. As it stands right now, both of you have broken the 3 revert rule and are engaged in an all out
revert war which, regardless of who is right and who is wrong, is disruptive for Wikipedia. I'm glad that you asked for a third opinion on this and I'm very glad that you're actively explaining your edits on the talk page. If this issue persists, feel free to ask for external help or
WP:RFC and most people will be happy to help as long as you're not adding to the problem by edit warring.
Thanks again for your message and feel free to contact me if you have any more questions.
Peace! SWik78 ( talk • contribs) 15:24, 22 May 2008 (UTC)
Dear editor your recent actions at Holodomor article: 14:11, 22 May 2008 Faustian (Talk | contribs) (115,319 bytes) (make your edits without adding all the spelling and grammar errors, please) 13:39, 21 May 2008 Faustian (Talk | contribs) (115,319 bytes) (next time, limit your edit to information, rather than changing "sowing" to "sawing" and burying your edit in spelling errors which are vandalism) 13:32, 20 May 2008 Faustian (Talk | contribs) (115,355 bytes) (fixed grammar and spelling) 14:43, 19 May 2008 Faustian (Talk | contribs) (115,355 bytes) (rv insertion of spelling and grammar mistakes by disruptive editor)
described as Sneaky vandalism – see more at WP:Vandalism
Please limit your edits to grammar and spelling - i.e. “the” , “further” “owing”. If you Can't understand passage or statement – fill free to ask at talk page. Best regards Jo0doe ( talk) 19:22, 22 May 2008 (UTC)
Please note that I have started a discussion at WP:ANI on your involvement in the recent edit war on the above article. SWik78 ( talk • contribs) 14:03, 23 May 2008 (UTC)
I read most of the discussion. What can I say? I think you are getting an extremely high share of bad luck. After Joe's insults to get that kind of crap is just too much. One must give credit to Joe, actually. That fellow, composed himself somewhat lately, and even at his worst times he at least cited sources (often falsely but sometimes usefully) rather to plainly arguing his views.
This subject though, is much deeper and nuanced though (in general.) Personally, I think that Gogol and Bulgakov did connect to Ukraine very well. That their literature is Russian is without doubt but the analogy of the writers from Ireland who wrote some good chunk of the best English literature comes to mind wrt to the writers who wrote the Russian literature but had clearly a Ukrainian (which was not necessarily Ukrainophile) worldview.
Compare Gogol with his contemporaries! His view of Russia is clearly influenced by his ability to both consider Russia as his country and being able to view at it from outside. (Perhaps this is what Little Russianness means?) No Russian was able to write such a damning satire on their country as Gogol's Revizor or Dead Souls. That he viewed himself an unquestionable patriot of Russia is, actually, not a contradiction.
Same applies to Bulgakov, if you look at his perception of the Russian Revolution. While the writers of the indigenous Russian intelligentsia were musing about the eternal guilt of the Russian elite that it owes to the Russian folk (read Platonov's writing, for example), Bulgakov presents the revolution as simply a scummy Shvonder taking away the flat from Professor Preobrazhensky. To me it seems a not so "Russian" view and the analogy with Gogol comes to mind instantly.
Back to the subject. I will watch the article and thank you for your edits. -- Irpen 01:53, 3 June 2008 (UTC)
You currently appear to be engaged in an
edit war according to the reverts you have made on
Ukrainians of Brazil. Note that the
three-revert rule prohibits making more than three reversions on a single page within a 24 hour period. Additionally, users who perform a large number of reversions in content disputes may be blocked for edit warring, even if they do not technically violate the
three-revert rule. If you continue, you may be
blocked from editing. Please do not repeatedly revert edits, but use the talk page to work towards wording and content that gains a
consensus among editors. If necessary, pursue
dispute resolution.
Tiptoety
talk
14:18, 23 May 2008 (UTC)
Two months ago I requested that a citizenship and ethnicity parameters should be added to Template:Infobox Writer. I has been requested again at Template talk:Infobox Writer and I think if several users will support it, It can added. In the case of Ukrainian writers such a Gogol and others this is important. Please join me there Bandurist ( talk) 17:11, 4 June 2008 (UTC)
ru:Галицийское генерал-губернаторство? -- Kuban Cossack 16:03, 19 June 2008 (UTC)
You might be interested in this link http://www.holocaust-history.org/works/imt/03/htm/t021.htm which is referenced as a proof by one contributors of the objectiv of the ukrainian nationalist : what is interesting, is that this sentenced is taken from the International Military trial (a primary document): one austrian officer report what was said to one of his superior by a german admiral, 6 years before.... That kind of document, which is important could not been used directly without confonting it with some other written report or fact ... So taken out of the context, and interpreted as it is, it s a real Original Research
Best regards,
See User talk:Alex Bakharev Bobanni ( talk) 04:23, 3 July 2008 (UTC)
I wrote you another explanation on the Incidents page.
Be shure! I'm not M.V.E.i. I dont even know him! I know he created many images with license problems in the Russian Diasspora category which i fixed after i learned how from another User, who was in an argument with MVEi on the Russians talk page about how the collage should look, and i supported him and not MVEi. I dont know who MVEi was but it seems he was egomaniac and every change to what he did he took as personal. In the Russians history page he looked like a PRO-edit war lover. Thats everything but me. I belive in discussion. I dont agree with Rkwalton about something in the Thumb-Wrestling category. Do you see me edit war him? No! I have a discussion on his talk page. In the article of the Obsolete Russian units of measurement after reverting someone i returned what he said with add-ons and explained him here in order to see we have a concensus.
Again, i can find you many wikipedians who are Anarchists, and like Punk rock. Are they the same user? I came to contribute to Wikipedia. I want to maybe become an administrator one day. I'm not a sock-puppet.
P.S. If you know Russian you might enter National Bolshevik sites to see where my political rethorics are taken from. Log in, log out ( talk) 09:13, 3 July 2008 (UTC)
Actually among the soldiers the majority was Russian. Among the populations Russians lost more then any other group. Anyway, i changed the formulation there from saying that most were Russians to Russians having the highest precentege. Log in, log out ( talk) 19:33, 3 July 2008 (UTC)
Have you requested the Checkuser yet? This is so obviously MVEi. His writing style is the exact same, and such outbursts seem familiar (and the same weird West Ukraine claims. Isn't he the one who said the peo[le of Lviv were Hungarians?) Ostap 04:22, 4 July 2008 (UTC)
Obviously, the topic of the UPA is a massively contentious and involved issue and I'm not sure I have the knowledge or the energy to get involved there. But, judging from the talk page, I see you are asking about the suitability of the book Українська Повстанська Армія - Історія нескорених - Львів, 2007 as a source for this article. Are you aware of the Wikipedia policy WP:V on verifiability? Regarding the use of non-English sources, it says:
Because this is the English Wikipedia, for the convenience of our readers, editors should use English-language sources in preference to sources in other languages, assuming the availability of an English-language source of equal quality, so that readers can easily verify that the source material has been used correctly. Where editors use a non-English source to support material that others are likely to challenge, or translate any direct quote, they need to quote the relevant portion of the original text in a footnote or in the article, so readers can check that it agrees with the article content. Translations published by reliable sources are preferred over translations made by Wikipedia editors.
Hope this helps. -- Folantin ( talk) 16:40, 9 July 2008 (UTC)
Hi there,
Thanks for your message. It's very frustrating when communications break down with another editor. However, you really need to go through the dispute resolution process rather than administrators. It'll be far more effective, as a large number of uninvolved editors and admins may be able to support you there, rather than just one admin. I'd suggest trying WP:WQA first, although you might want to consider WP:RFC/USER if you think it's a serious enough situation. Cheers, Papa November ( talk) 11:10, 12 July 2008 (UTC)
Hey, have a look here. Also this page is getting rather long, consider archiving some of the old stuff. -- Kuban Cossack 12:30, 15 July 2008 (UTC)
Hi Faustian, I just want to express my gratitude for this [10]. I do appreciate it, as unfortunately, stance of some users is to clear real perpetrators of these atrocities of any responsibility. My stance on this is firm - no matter what wrongdoings the Polish government did to the Ukrainians in the interbellum period (and they all are nothing compared to the Holodomor), there is no justification to the mass slaughter of babies, children, women and the elderly. It is not about the Ukrainians, I would keep the same opinion if the perpetrators had been the Eskimos or the Kazakhs. Thank you again. Tymek ( talk) 00:35, 26 July 2008 (UTC)
You edited Expulsion of Germans after World War II in a way I consider controversial. I moved your edit to the talk page to discuss it there first. No offense. Skäpperöd ( talk) 18:09, 29 July 2008 (UTC)
I added source by German historian that part of the reason of population transfer was the support for Nazism in affected territories.-- Molobo ( talk) 20:15, 29 July 2008 (UTC)
Thanks for your messages on my talk page. Please accept my apologies for the delay in replying. I am pleased to see that discussion appears to have cooled down for that article.
I have no particular knowledge of the topics which were under dispute, but a few thoughts do occur to me. It appears that some of the circumstances are a matter of genuine academic dispute. We cannot say who is right or wrong in such a dispute. We're all aware that many academics do have particular world views which may be reflected in their work, but we can't disregard their peer reviewed work simply because some editors feel that they are "Kremlinologists" or whatever. Allegations like this should have no bearing on our work, and they shouldn't even be reported unless reputable and notable sources can be found claiming such things.
However, we can, and should ensure that the sources we use are verifiable and either (preferably) have appeared in peer-reviewed journals or publications giving clear indication of a similar level of scholarship, or that they can be shown to be representative of a particular line of thought held by a significant number of people. Where there is some controversy, we should also state who advances the viewpoints we describe.
It may be that the Institute of History of the Ukrainian Academy of Sciences is of greater note than the figures from Google Scholar suggest. This is pure speculation on my part, but perhaps they have published significant work in Russian or Ukrainian which has not been translated? Either way, the Ukrainian Academy of Sciences in general is widely cited.
Lastly, on the quote "...editors should use English-language sources in preference to sources in other languages, assuming the availability of an English-language source of equal quality..." - I believe that this is intended to govern which source should be used in the event of two sources of equal quality stating the same thing. I don't believe that it is intended to argue for giving English language sources precedence where sources in another language say something quite different.
I hope this is of some use. Please feel free to contact me, should you have any questions or comments. Should User:Jo0doe return to editing, I'll also reply to them. Warofdreams talk 00:06, 31 July 2008 (UTC)
I was in a funny mood when I posted that. I though your question about my nerves to be humorous. It was not my intention to be nasty, but rather to introduce an element of satire to what I see as a bit of a surreal situation. I figured after all of these weeks of the business of debate that some humor needed to be introduced. Perhaps my brand of humor is not for you. The funny thing is that in another context such a post could be seen as completely sincere. Chillum 04:00, 22 July 2009 (UTC)
A request for formal mediation of the dispute concerning Rorschach test has been filed with the Mediation Committee (MedCom). You have been named as a party in this request. Please review the request at Wikipedia:Requests for mediation/Rorschach test and then indicate in the "Party agreement" section whether you would agree to participate in the mediation or not.
Mediation is a process where a group of editors in disagreement over matters of article content are guided through discussing the issues of the dispute (and towards developing a resolution) by an uninvolved editor experienced with handling disputes (the mediator). The process is voluntary and is designed for parties who disagree in good faith and who share a common desire to resolve their differences. Further information on the MedCom is at Wikipedia:Mediation Committee; the policy the Committee will work by whilst handling your dispute is at Wikipedia:Mediation Committee/Policy; further information on Wikipedia's policy on resolving disagreements is at Wikipedia:Resolving disputes.
If you would be willing to participate in the mediation of this dispute but wish for its scope to be adjusted then you may propose on the case talk page amendments or additions to the list of issues to be mediated. Any queries or concerns that you have may be directed to an active mediator of the Committee or by e-mailing the MedCom's private mailing list ( click here for details).
Please indicate on the case page your agreement to participate in the mediation within seven days of the request's submission.
If those (rather silly) personal attacks ever lead to you filing some sort of report, this might be good to add to it. Ostap 06:11, 27 July 2009 (UTC)
You've been quoted here. – xeno talk 03:37, 29 July 2009 (UTC)
Seems you're very quoteworthy [11]. – xeno talk 02:15, 30 July 2009 (UTC)
Check out this article
http://narodnapravda.com.ua/history/4a6a9b518ccfd/
Bandurist ( talk) 02:07, 30 July 2009 (UTC)
How accurate is the depiction of the test administration in the NYT's picture? Obviously we can't use that picture itself but it would be a good reference for someone trying to create a better image for the lead. – xeno talk 22:20, 30 July 2009 (UTC)