User talk:Faustian/Archive 2

Treaty of Warsaw (1920)

I'd appreciate your comments and copy editing to this new article.-- _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk}  23:13, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

"the most powerful medieval monarch"

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)

While in general I agree, in specific instances it seems to me that such claims are appropriate, for example when a ruler expands his state, which was the case of Roman. The article on Andrei Bogolyubsky follows a similar logic, stating correctly that "during Andrei Bogolyubsky’s reign Vladimir-Suzdal principality attained significant power and was the strongest among the Rus' principalities."

With respect to Danylo, in my edit the wording about "most powerful" applied to Roman (Danylo's father), who did not rule at the same time as Nevsky (incidentally, Vernadsky wrote an interesting comparison of Danylo and Nevsky, regarding them as more or less equals). The claim that Roman was briefly the most powerful of the Rus princes was referenced from a legitimate source and seems logical, given his conquest of Kiev title of "Grand Prince of Kiev." More info on the guy:[1] Faustian 17:25, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

I know who Roman is, thank you. I will not remove your claim again. Suffice it to say that it was not me who wrote the Bogolyubsky article. His preeminence in Rus is hard to dispute, given the fate that befell his opponents in Ryazan and Smolensk. --Ghirla^-трёп- 18:55, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

K uban

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)

On the streets? Cossacks live rural stanitsas not in cities. And census shows less than 2% of the population now Ukrainian. Russophilic? Well that's what we are. --Kuban Cossack 15:49, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

Just because the people are Russophillic does not mean that they aren't a Ukrainian population group. For example the Galician Russophiles certainly weren't Russian in spite of their ideology. Obviously it would be absurd to describe Kuban as "occupied territory" because the people seem to be quite patriotic towards Russia. But this doesn't make them any less ethnic Ukrainian.Faustian 20:13, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

32 hours

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)

I will continue adding categories because the evidence supports their inclusion. However I hope that after 32 hours or 24 hours or whenever you stop making edits based on your or kuban kozak's or other people's opinions and let the evidence speak for itself.Faustian 22:48, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

Faustian, MVEi is rather hot-headed and difficult guy but it gives no one an excuse to engage into sterile revert wars with him. I left him a strongly worded message to cut it but it takes two to revert war. I know you for an excellent editor and I am surprised to see you carried away like this. The so many reverts so fast is never a way to go. The Wikipedia won't collapse if the article will stay in the "wrong" version for a day or two while the discussion is still going. Oh, and as for the dispute itself, I happen to disagree with the cat. I left a note to that degree at the article's talk. I am glad to see that this revert war passed unnoticed by the block-happy admins and you were not blocked. However, please act as if you learned the lesson. Cheers, --Irpen 02:37, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

I had more free time than usual, but will stop the revert wars. bestFaustian 04:18, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

Cossacks

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)

Bandurist, this is a false assertion. Read Britannica. --Irpen 06:04, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

Would it make sense to refer to Ruthenians specifically from Ukraine (such as Khmelnytsky) as Ukrainians in this case?Faustian 13:15, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

In my opinion using the term Ruthenian in this context tends to muddle up the situation with the Ruthenians of Yugolsavia. Faustian, do youhave an email address? Bandurist 16:23, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

Talk:Rorschach inkblot test

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)

This is a hot issue for some people; it almost seems like an intense political or religious debate. I appreciate your efforts at being calm and reasonable.Faustian 17:00, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

Would you like to participate

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)

It looks good, although I don't know enough about architecture to contribute much. Thank you for the invitation though, you are doing a good job there.Faustian 00:32, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

Massacres in Volhynia

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)

I agree. A word of caution to you, however, that you seem to have a tendency to use dubious and sensationalistic sources such as Poliszczuk or the Siemaszkos who magnify the events or make things up. We should stick to historians rather than agitators. regardsFaustian 19:15, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

I just wanted to add that I like your recent edits...Faustian 18:02, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

Hi, I changed this sentence: “In return, the Polish side also engaged in acts of brutality and vengeance”

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)

Allegedly Polish police working for the Germans started killing Ukrainian civilians in the western edge of Volhynia, where the Poles were not outnumbered, rather than in the middle of the region. Subtelny repeats the claim but also states that noone knows who really started it. Faustian 19:40, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

I have no doubts about quality of Subtelny's work, and many Polish historians reported some skirmishes between Ukrainian and Polish police but I do not know if these events can be connected in any way to the massacres. These skirmishes mostly were the result of mutual dislike and were not organized and prepared. However, I seriously doubt if incidents described by Subtelny marked the beginning of the massacres. I am putting aside Polish historians in this matter, and out of those few who wrote about very massacres, all so far agree that they were started by the Ukrainians. Thanks for you appreciation, it is very nice to exchange opinion with you Tymek 22:10, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

M. Siwicki (Zapysky siroho Volyniaka Lviv 1996 - p.39) states that the census of 1931 was falsified. The Polishcensus stated that of the 2 085 574 people living in Volhyn 1 428 341 (68.9%) were Ukrainian.

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)

The 1931 census gives 3 762 500 Orthodox christians in Vohyn - 69% Ukrainian 29 % belorusan, 2-3% Russian, Czechs and Poles.

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)

Hi Bandurist. I have read that the Polish census might have been falsified, and this info comes from Polish books, but we have no credible proof for it, after so many years, and this article is not about demographics of interbellum Volhynia. I will make a little change in the article , I will write that Ukrainians made at least 68% in Volhynia, as we do not know the exact number today. Anyway, I suggest we move our comments to the article's talk page. Greetings Tymek 01:59, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

Award

		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)

Thank you!Faustian 23:00, 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)

Ukrainians in Kuban

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)

I'll be busy for a little while and can't respond in detail, but my quick response is that the Ukrainians in Kuban article should stand although edits to it would be helpful. It's an interesting and important subject worthy of an article.

One note on balachka that should be added (the article is blocked from editing) is that linguists do consider it a dialect of the Ukrainian language, albeit one with extensive Russian and others influences that differs significantly from standard Ukrainian. Indeed, even the tsarist authorities declared it to be a variant of Little Russian as per the 1897 census. This is an important point which shouldn't have been taken out. bestFaustian 18:12, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

Well any answer is good, the trouble is that in its current state it has to be re-written completely and the finished result would not be much different from our section in Ukrainians in Russia. So the point?

As for balachka, remember that in 1897 Little Russian, was considered to be but a branch of Russian. In fact as Zakharchenko points out, it makes little difference which one you include it in, because the dialect is as Russian as it is Ukrainian, and its neither. Just how much more influence the two languages have on it is for linguists to point out.

Also I know you don't like personal relations, but what do you make of Hillock's disrespect to our mutual agreement? --18:20, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

I disagree with his judgment of that section, it seems fine to me now. I think the Ukrainians in Kuban article offers more info than would be appropriate for the general article on Ukrainians in Russia, so it's appropriate for it to be a seperate article. I haven't looked at it carefully but in my brief view it doesn't seem to be grossly inappropriate or propagandistic. best,Faustian 18:38, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

I've read the Ukrainian in Kuban article. Overall, the genocidal implications of the dispaearance of Ukrainian identity need to be changed, and I would like references for the valuable info, but it seems like a pretty good article.Faustian 21:28, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

Dmowski 3RR

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)

My mistake

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)

Thanks. It's an example of my high regard for you that I automatically take your statements as facts. We all make mistakes once in a while.Faustian (talk) 14:05, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

Thanks. That does not change the fact that Kuzio is of course a respectable scholar. Check out his blog, btw. --Irpen 14:30, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

Rorschach Issue

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)

Roman Dmowski

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)

Thanks

Thank you for your cooperation with the article on Massacres in Volhynia. Good job, Tymek (talk) 05:16, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

You are right, but why did you revert??

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)

P.S. In Nationality i restored Ukrainian to, you were right here.

In the Categories i removed Ukrainian Scientists, because it's to general, and instead entered Ukrainian biologists, which wasn't here before. 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)

P.S. I'm against link-mania so i dont need a link. I trust your words. Shpakovich (talk) 17:34, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

I reread and clarified. There is a lot of info on his nationality on both sources [2] and [3].Faustian (talk) 17:42, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

Bandurist

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)

I've made some changes to the article. Bandurist has a POV but he also provides good information. regards Faustian (talk) 18:41, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

Well thanks for your additions, btw can you reply to my compromise suggestion on the poster ASAP, and also fix the caption of the coat for arms I added? --Kuban Cossack 20:06, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

question

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 will look at it when I get home. I believe it depicted Ukraine and Russia before and after Pereyaslav; the Ukrainian Cossack represting Ukraine was proud and healthy pre-Pereyaslav, and in the after picture he was half-naked and half-starved. I'm going by memory and haven't looked at the book for a while.Faustian (talk) 21:59, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

It's on page 64. regardsFaustian (talk) 23:35, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

Thanks, I found it earlier. Not bad. Ostap 21:04, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

I think that that image (assuming copyright isn't a problem) plus the Communist propaganda poster would both be good for the Pereyaslav article in illustrating that treaty's legacy. At the same time, that poster (or another similar image, such as the Tsarist-era painting) along with Ukraine's coat of arms would work in the Zaporozhian legacy section.Faustian (talk) 21:35, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

Linking to images

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)

Unsolicited answer

...Because he's always right, and everyone else is wrong.--Riurik^(discuss) 06:11, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

UPA Nazi collaboration

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)

I haven't heard about UPA securing mountain passes for the Germans; on the contrary, I heard that they were fighting against the Germans for mountain passes. Again, collaboration involved putting oneself under the authority of the Germans - such as police under German command (which OUN did, although for their own purposes) or the SS division, or administrators within the German occupational regime. UPA cooperation seemed to have been more of an alliance against a common enemy, like that of the Finns with Germany, rather than service to the occupier as in the case of typical case of collaboration such as Vichy France. The wikipedia definition of Collaborationism states: Collaborationism, as a pejorative term, can describe the treason of cooperating with enemy forces occupying one's country. As such it implies criminal deeds in the service of the occupying power, including complicity with the occupying power in murder, persecutions, pillage, and economic exploitation as well as participation in a puppet government.

In this case, it's tricky. On the one hand, UPA cooperated against someone occupying their country. However they did so in order to fight against someone else whom they saw as trying to occupy their country (either Poland or the USSR). And I have not yet seen evidence that UPA (instead of the OUN's police in 1941) committed criminal deeds such as murder or persecutions or pillaging in the service of Germany while cooperating with the Germans.Faustian (talk) 04:26, 3 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)

This information above, with good references, should be incorporated into the article. It seems that as the article increases in length, individual articles with all the details about UPA and Germans, UPA and Soviets, can be created with briefer summaries of those articles in the main article (something similar has been done with the Massacre of Poles in Volyn, although those massacres also cover non-UPA killing)) Thank you.Faustian (talk) 19:01, 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)

With respect to collaboration and UPA, it is a difficult matter. Poland's legal authority over western UKraine was somewhat questionable - Poland was granted theright to rule over it by the League of Nations with the Polish promise of autonomy and a referendum in September 1939. Those conditions were not met by Poland. So UPA can probably not be considered Poles (even though it's members were mostly Polish citizens) serving an occupier against their own (fellow Polish) people.

Afterward, there were two powers trying to occupy western Ukraine (eastern Ukraine was legally speaking not occupied by the USSR). UPA's cooperation with the Germans seemed to be limited to ways that helped UPA fight the next, Soviet, occupier of western Ukraine. They did not help the Germans against their own people (as, say, in the case of police, or informants, etc. more correctly thought of as collaborators). They seemed more to be allies than collaborators.Faustian (talk) 19:34, 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)

Hi, don't worry about overloading my talk pages - I can always move the conversation somewhere else. My point is that in many cases people are clearly collaborators (Vichy France, Quisling, Ukrainian or Jewish police working for Germans etc.). Unlike those cases, with UPA's cooperation it depends upon one's POV. It's much messier. Perhaps Finland might not be a good example. Would you consider Polish troops fighting for Napoleon against Russia to be collaborators?Faustian (talk) 20:57, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

Ukrainian Insurgent Army Arbitration

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)

Thank you for informing me...Faustian (talk) 18:50, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

• You noticed - perfect. Would be good to see an origins of Hurby battle and other Jo0doe (talk) 21:06, 8 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)

Thanks!Faustian (talk) 22:04, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

Vasyl Kuk

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)

Interesting article, I would include the info in the Kuk wikipedia entry, stating that it came from an interview. Thanks!Faustian (talk) 21:21, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

Barnstar (history)

		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)

Comment

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've already started moving away from insults.Faustian (talk) 02:45, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

I already saw that. Thanks a lot. I simply do not have enough time to join the UPA article now but I am following the discussion. Re Joe's recent talk page entries, I slightly moderated it and removed some direct references to you as a person. As for his points, at least half of them seems valid. Let's make sure we address them properly. It is difficult to request from him to present his own version of the contentious parts of the article to work from there towards the compromise since his English just won't allow him to do this. But we should continue to work this out since the neither the article now no his version in the raw would satisfy NPOV. Just my two cents. --Irpen 20:20, 21 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)

Inkblot disclaimer

Wikipedia doesn't normally use disclaimers & one is advised to remove them on sight. нмŵוτнτ 04:35, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

Not all situations are the same. In the case of the inkblot, people have a right to know the potential consequences of going to the link. What's wrong with that?Faustian (talk) 05:37, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

Zaporozhets za Dunayem

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)

I'll try, at some point, but I am busier now than I have been for several weeks and will probably focus my time on keeping things from getting out of hand in the UPA article. warmly, Faustian (talk) 15:49, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

Still what about some feedback? --Kuban Cossack 01:01, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

I like the article very much; there are some minor grammar and stylistic issues that I will work on when I have a chance, and there need to be more references I think. I'll add more about the Rusnaks if I can find it on the internet.warmly,Faustian (talk) 15:49, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

That's what I consider dubious... according to the sources including some Ukrainian langauge publications all found at the bottom of the page. After Gladky defected to Russia, the Sultan called upon Janissaries who wiped out whoever remained in the Sich and sacked it as well, and even those Cossacks rallied for war were disarmed and died in forced labour deep in Anatolia. That would rule out the Rusnaks being descendants of the Danubian Sich, so who are they descendants of? You are right there is hardly any sources that can be found about them, moreover the link gives to the Rusyn language. That's why I marked it as dubious. --Kuban Cossack 18:53, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

I moved the remaining part of the talk to the article's talk page. --Kuban Cossack 16:46, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

Thanks!Faustian (talk) 16:53, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

Danube Cossack Host

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)

Vandalism

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)

Sorry, referenced info from secondary sources belong in wikipedia. When you cherry-pick info from a primary source that directly contradicts a summary from the secondary source, your cherry-picked info will be deleted. Wikipedia, after all, relies on secondary sources. It's unfortunate that you disagree.Faustian (talk) 17:06, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

On a totally unrelated note

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)

Thanks! I'm not new, but I am technologically handicapped.Faustian (talk) 02:10, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

Minority POV

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)

I was merely contrasting a minority but legitimate scientific view (global warming skeptics) with a view (intelligent design) that is not considered legitimate within the context of the scientific community.Faustian (talk) 18:59, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

Rorschach

"It seems the compromise issue is heating up again...Faustian 19:06, 27 February 2008 (UTC)"

Unfortunately, I'm quite aware. I had cautioned Dela Rabadilla that posting an RfC would bring out all of the image-must-be-shown zealots from all corners of the universe, but I think he naively thought that people can be rationale. I've fought this battle so much that I am war-weary. I may make a comment at some point, especially if the consensus is hanging in the balance. But I don't have it in me to keep fighting this issue over and over. I'll keep an eye on it though. Thanks for the message. Ward3001 (talk) 20:28, 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)

Village pump

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)

Thanks for my attention. I'm leaving work and won't be on the computer tonight (anniversary dinner) but will try to take a look tomorrow....Faustian (talk) 21:40, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

Inkblots

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, нмŵוτнτ 20:39, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

Sorry if I have offended you, but what that I have written was an attack or uncivil? I am, admitedly, somewhat frustrated by the refusal to actually address the rules but I think that I haven't crossed any lines. So I guess you won't address the rules? Faustian (talk) 20:41, 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. нмŵוτнτ 20:36, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

I haven't reverted anything there. What gives?Faustian (talk) 21:07, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

Info about viewing the blots

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)

RE: Rorschach reference

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)

Even in tests with high test-retest reliability (such as the Wechsler tests) the tests need to be administered long after prior administration for them to be valid (I think in the case of the WAIS, a year or so) due to prior exposure.Faustian (talk) 04:32, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

I have not completed a thorough search yet, but I have a communication for you that I prefer to do by email if you don't mind. If that's OK with you here's my email address: the left side of the address is identical to my Wikipedia user name. The right side is at yahoo dot com. Thanks. Ward3001 (talk) 23:08, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

AfD nomination of Ivan Rohach

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 (~~~~).

Its award time!

		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)

Sluzhba Bezbeky

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)

Allow me

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)

Thanks, although I don't seem to be exactly cooperating with the guy. Instead I take what there is of value in his contributions and delete the rest. Unfortunately with him it doesn't seem to be a collaborative effort....Faustian (talk) 02:36, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

Our friend Joe is not the only case I had in mind. His is just the most recent one. As for this guy, his main value is his sources that no one else has. Incorporating what is useful in them is the job we all have to do. You are doing what you can and manage to ignore the personal spats with incredible patience. You well deserved an award. --Irpen 03:04, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

Well thank you, it means a lot.Faustian (talk) 03:43, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

Procurement, etc.

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)

I agree. I tried hiding that section once (rather than deleting it) until someone could fix it. But then the edit war resumed again.Faustian (talk) 02:45, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

Thanks!

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)

Here is something else I found might be worth a read. --Kuban Cossack 15:03, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

The web page [5] is being blocked here at work but I will try to access it from home.Faustian (talk) 20:39, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

I looked at the webpage, and my opinion about Hladky hasn't changed. It seems he abandoned his wife and four kids for many years before embarking on his adventure, which fits his pattern of behavior. He was rewarded well, though.Faustian (talk) 02:58, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

UPA, Joe and sources

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)

Thank you for the support, and help. At some point I decided that I've spent so much time on the UPA article that no matter hwo much more time I invest, I will do it in order to prevent my time invested from having been wasted by having the article seriously damaged. But this leaves me less time for other edits. Ironically, I probably have much less family connections to the OUN or UPA than the majority of other Ukrainians from the diaspora and don't even particalarly like the OUN's ideology.

With respect to the paper on the Famine, I think that the same problem with the same editor is evident here as in the UPA article. As wikipedia editors, we have to stick to secondary sources - the basis of wikipedia articles - and what those sources conclude. We do not second-guess those conclusions, estimate what the author really meant, etc. no matter how much evidence we can present to make our case. Doing so is original research. The quotes from the conclusion section seems to be the final word on what that source said. Period. So I fully agree with your comments. There is, I guess, the temptation by those who have access to archives to turn wikipedia articles into original research papers, which contradicts wikipedia policy (and these policies are in place for a very good reason). regardsFaustian (talk) 02:20, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

Holodomor numbers

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:

• Source 1: Jacques Vallin, France Mesle, Serguei Adamets, Serhii Pyrozhkov, "A New Estimate of Ukrainian Population Losses during the Crises of the 1930s and 1940s", Population Studies, Vol. 56, No. 3. (Nov., 2002), pp. 249-264. Abstract available here. Full version available with subscription but I have it, read and double checked and provided to several users.
• Source 2 (also here: France Meslé, Gilles Pison, Jacques Vallin, "France-Ukraine: Demographic twins separated by history", Population and Societies, no. 413, June 2005,The monthly newsletter of the Institut national d’études démographiques ISSN 0184-7783 (PDF full version was off-line for a couple of hours today but now back online, I downloaded a copy if it goes off line again)

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:

The disasters of the decade culminated in the horrific famine of 1933. [...] Our estimates suggest that total losses can be put at 4.6 million, 0.9 million of which was due to forced migration, 1 million to a deficit in births, and 2.6 million to exceptional mortality.

Source 2:

What is striking in the long-term picture of Ukrainian life expectancy is the devastating impact of the calamities of the 1930s and 1940s (Fig.3). In 1933, the famine which had occasioned unparalleled excess mortality of 2.2 million ⁽²⁾, cut the period life expectancy to a low of under 10 years ^[2].

⁽²⁾ 2.6 million deaths in 1933 instead of the normal 433,000 to be expected from previous trends.

^[2]France MESLÉ and Jacques VALLIN - Mortalité et causes de décès en Ukraine au XXe siècle, Les Cahiers de l’Ined, no. 152, Ined, 2003, 396 p. With this appendix

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).

Однако если говорить о гибели людей от голода в Украине в 1933 году, следует называть только одну цифру — 3238 тыс. человек. Или, принимая во внимание неточность статистики, цифры в диапазоне от 3 до 3,5 млн. человек.

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)

Since it's not up us to judge which source is "better" as long as they all meet the criteria of reliable sources (which they do), all of the figures should belong (or for the sake of being brief, a range from low to high). The distinction of demographers and historians is important, so perhaps a brief description of the source (i.e., demographers concluded this, historians concluded that) is in order. Saying what politicans claim is also important, as long as their figures aren't cited as fact. I think the way the lead presently looks is generally acceptable, in my opinion.Faustian (talk) 16:25, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

Irpen thanks for bringing this issue up for discussion. I checked the sources above, and there is indeed a puzzling contradiction between the 2002 paper (2.6m) and the (2005) paper (2.2m). In 2005, the authors first state 2.2m then immediately cite the footnote (after the comma) and give 2.6m in the footnote, as if qualifying themselves. Then at the end of the sentence, they also cite the book in French. I found a summary of the book and used Babel Fish to produce a translation. Here is the part concerning the 1930s:

"::Mortality and causes of death in Ukraine at the XXe century by

(Book) INED Collection Books of the INED 2003, 422 p., 25 euros

ISBN: 2733201522

A collective work directed by France Meslé and Jacques Vallin (accompanied by a cédérom)

During the XXe century, the Ukraine was confronted with two types very different of major medical crises. In the years 1930 and 1940 it underwent very heavy losses because of the famine, of the war and the political disturbances. Evaluations of total losses already gave an idea of the width of these catastrophes but they do not distinguish the surmortality from crisis of the deficit of the births nor of the migratory losses. The gathering of all the existing statistical sources (marital status, censuses, enumerations of the people transported and off-set, statistics of Gulag...) provided the base necessary to a patient work of reconstitution, which makes it possible, for the first time, to precisely estimate the hecatomb in terms of a number of deaths and life expectancy.

Thus on a total demographic deficit of 4,6 million people due to the famine and the Stalinist repression of the years 1930, the surmortality of crisis caused with it only 2,6 million deaths, reducing at the height crisis the life expectancy of the men to 7 years and that of the women at 11 years. In the same way, to the total losses of 13,8 million people for the years 1940, corresponds a surmortality of crisis of 7,4 million death being spread out over 7 years with a life expectancy falling at worst the moments to less than 14 years for the men and to 20 years for the women.

Once last these crises of the years 1930 and 1940, the former medical evolution takes again its course and, until the years 1960, mortality moves back deeply. However, as from this time a crisis of a new type occurs causing a durable inversion of the last tendencies : the life expectancy completely ceases increasing among women and year by year strongly moves back at the men. The great fluctuations of the years 1980 and 1990 are only additional misadventures around this new unfavourable general tendency, since they are entirely due initially to the risks of the campaign against alcohol of 1985 then with those of the brutal passage to the market economy. The new retreat of life expectancy noted during all last years of the century indicates on the contrary, that in spite jamming caused by these fluctuations, the tendency remains, long-term, with deterioration."

So what can be concluded? The 2.2m figure is given to the reader on its own, without being substantiated since all the references provided cite the 2.6m figure. It is not clear why that number is used at all ("exceptional mortality" used in 2002, and "excess mortality" used in 2005 are the same thing, right?). Unless someone else has an explanation for this discrepancy, the next best option is to ask another demographer/expert if not the authors themselves. In conclusion, I concur with Faustian that at this point we cite all three (four if counting the French book), and differentiate between them by profession, i.e. who concluded what.--Riurik^(discuss) 20:53, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

Image copyright problem with Image:100 0810.JPG

Image Copyright problem

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)

anti-Ukrainian nationalist

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)

It is true of both. The man implies that Ukrainians were even worse than Germans. Here are some quotes from Szawlowski's review[6]: "Secondly, Ukrainian genocide was characterized as a rule by tortures of the utmost barbarity. These reached back to the Cossack traditions of the XVII th and XVIII th centuries (the Khmelnitsky Uprising 12 and the uprising of 1768 called "kolistchyzna"13), with the methods in use at that time - hacking Poles and Jews with axes, throwing wounded victims into wells, sawing people alive, horse-dragging, eye-gouging, pulling out of tongues, and other atrocities 14. Such acts of barbarity were not as a rule employed by the Germans or even the Soviets. Of course there were beatings and frequently bestial cruelty during interrogations 15 or in concentration camps (where this was accompanied' by starvation and backbreaking work, sometimes criminal medical experimenlation in German camps, etc.), but it was not usual for the murder thal took place there to be combined with the cutling off or pulling out of parts of the body, sawing, ripping open of the stomach, disembowelment, and so on 16."

And: "Let us add that on a European scale, as far as dreadful tortures go,the genocide committed by the Ukrainians on the Poles is only comparable, to a certain extent, to the Croatian genocide (by the Ustasi of Ante Pavelic) against the Serbs during World War II from the spring of 1941. " And:

"As for the stance taken by the upper levels of the clergy of the Greek-Catholic Church, which has taken, in the present day, the rather pretentious and ethnocentric name of Byzantine-Ukrainian Church..."

Szawlowski also defends Poliszczuk the non-historian while methodically critiquing actual historians such as Hrycak or the Polish historian Ryszard Torzecki in his article. But Szawlowski himself appears to be a lawyer rather than a historian.Faustian (talk) 21:29, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

Interesting, but unless we can find sources that are critical of Szawloski (or his works), our policies (LIVING, OR) do not support addition of such criticism to the articles. I certainly recognize those names as quite pro-Polish POVs, but that does not merit their censorship. PS. Who is Mykhaylo Koval? --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 21:48, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

A more extreme example (Godwin's law be damned, sometimes extreme example are good at illustrating points): do we add links to material written by neo-Nazis to articles about the Holocaust? I did not even censor the link, I merely labelled it appropriately so the reader knows what he or she is getting into when they open the link. But if the choice is to keep the link unlabelled or to remove it, than it should be removed.Faustian (talk) 21:53, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

Faustian, please remember that we cannot label people because we dislike them. We need reliable sources to support such labels.--_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 22:04, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

Would a brief example of the author's claims be more acceptable to you than an accurate summary? Should we add "written by a Polish non-historian who also claims that UPA's violence was worse than that of the Nazis or even the Soviets" and the fact that the author systematically disparages actual historians while at the same time applauds non-historians of well-known dubious credentials such as Poliszczuk? A brief description of Szawloski as a Polish nationalist non-historian, or simply not adding the link, seem to be much less clumsy solutions.Faustian (talk) 22:10, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

I've stubbed articles on several Polish authors. Perhaps you could do so for the Ukrainian sources; many of them are known as similarly biased as well.--_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 22:16, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

Swawlowski probably doesn't deserve his own article; he doesn't appear to be cited as often as, say, Poliszczuk. But that doesn't mean that we shouldn't post at least a brief description of him if we add the link to his work. Which Ukrainian sources comparable to Szawlowski are cited here or elsewhere and how are they cited?Faustian (talk) 22:20, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

I can't find enough to stub Ryszard Szawłowski; the most concrete info I can find is that he is a professor emeritus of law of the Polish University Abroad and is also connected with Calgary, Canada. As for the Ukrainian sources, the article is missing most of them. Who is Mykhaylo Koval? Some other academics are cited via secondary sources, which is not the optimal solution.--_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 03:26, 23 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)

A good review on the topic. --Irpen 23:15, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

Thanks!Faustian (talk) 23:37, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

Image copyright problem with Image:100 0810.JPG

Image Copyright problem

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)

Image copyright problem with Image:AubrunStateRecreationArea.JPG

Image Copyright problem

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!

Mykola Pymonenko, "Easter morning prayer in Little Russia", 1891, Oil on canvas, 133x193 cm, Rybinsk Museum-Preserve of History, Architecture and Art, Rybinsk, Russia.

Happy Easter from the homeland! --Irpen 08:05, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

Thank you! I hope you are enjoying your stay!Faustian (talk) 16:21, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

Ukrainians of Brazil

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)

Sneaky vandalism

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)

As long as you choose to bury your edits in spelling and grammar mistakes your edits will be removed in entirety, if not by me than by someone else. Not everyone likes to play games as you do.Faustian (talk) 19:48, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

Your edits on Ukrainians of Brazil

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)

Thanks, although the edit warring appears ot have ended.Faustian (talk) 14:37, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

Ukrainians from...

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)

Thanks for the support! I actually prefer Bulgakov to Gogol (indeed, after Dostoyevsky Bulgakov is my favorite author) and generally agree with your observations. With respect to Gogol's Russian patriotism, I have a very interesting, and favorably reviewed, book by a Polish scholar [[7]] that argues that his loyalty wavered between Poland and Russia (Gogol spent much time abroad in the company of Polish exiles); only his love for Ukraine was consistent throughout his works. According to her, he actually had a lot of difficulty loving the real Russia - his passages so beloved by Russian patriots tended to be either abstract or he transposed Ukrainian experiences and referred to them as "Russian" and in so doing expressed his love for Ukraine in the guise of Russia. Not a mainsttream view of course, but well presented with numerous references. A reviewer from Johns Hopkins University stated that this book was "a major contribution to the history of Russian literary culture. Bojanowska illuminates Gogol's works in a new and interesting way, and makes a convincing case for his identification with Ukraine and his frequent inclination to compare Russia unfavorably to it. Her research is extensive, her argument fresh, stimulating, and controversial. The implications for our understanding of Gogol are enormous." The author does a good job also of showing how mainstream Russian scholarship has marginalized or overlooked those of Gogol's writings that are contradict his image of the loyal Ukrainian-Russian.Faustian (talk) 13:23, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

May 2008

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)

Thanks. The edit war seems to be over now...Faustian (talk) 14:37, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

Great! Glad to hear it. Let me know if there is anyway I can help. Cheers, Tiptoety ^talk 16:17, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

I started a Vira Vovk article translating sections from the Ukrainian Wikipedia. Please review it. Thanks 13:09, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

Citizenship and ethnicity

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)

I've done it.Faustian (talk) 19:13, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

What do you make of this

ru:Галицийское генерал-губернаторство? --Kuban Cossack 16:03, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

Based on a very quick, superficial reading: very interesting but also very one-sided. The religion section forgot to mention the arrest and deportation of many Uniate priests (including the head of the Ukrainian Catholic Church himself). A modified translation would be great for the English wikipedia page. Incidentally during this period my Russophile great-grandfather threw a party for Brusilov at his estate. He was obligated to send two of his sons to study in St. Petersburg (Military-Medical Institute) to avoid arrest in reprisal when the Austrians returned.Faustian (talk) 16:20, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

IMT

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,

Thank you! This shows the wisdom of the wikipedia policy of relying on secondary sources rather than on personal research through the archives (OR).Faustian (talk) 21:40, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

Here is the second one http://www.holocaust-history.org/works/imt/02/htm/t448.htm . The contributors make a total mistakes (as far as i understand) that what is saidd are the Nazi plan for ukrainian Galicia, and not OUN plan ... but i'm perhaps wrong...

Best regards —Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.204.141.143 (talk) 21:47, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

MYSTERY SOLVED – Krokhmaluk or Krokhmaliuk

See User talk:Alex Bakharev Bobanni (talk) 04:23, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

Thanks!Faustian (talk) 04:26, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

I continued the discussion

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)

If I'm wrong I apologize. Abusive rhetoric has no place here, even if it's copied from Russian extremist political organizations.Faustian (talk) 12:37, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

I havent known that, when i was told it's wrong, i hope you noticed that when Kuban reverted me i havent reverted him back. Why? Because i understood i said something that Wikipedia is not the place for it. Infact, i perfered not to wrote even something instead what was reverted because as a new user i perfer to learn first and get this talk page thing and only then write there. Log in, log out (talk) 13:20, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

I appreciate that you did that.Faustian (talk) 13:55, 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)

Among soldiers you are probably correct, but among civilians (most of the ones who died) Russians were a minority. An interesting article: [8]Faustian (talk) 20:16, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

Sorry it took me so long to answer you, i wanted to read it all first. Well, this article is not a reliable one. You might ask why? Because this man doesn't come from an acadamy, but as a political organisation member. During WW2 the Gulag was working, but dont forget that it's a known fact that it almost didn't recive people because everybody were to buisy for that. In the article i found a link by one of the greatest British historians, Overy. Here. 27 million is the number. Dont forget about all the archives the Germans destoyed at WW2, who willeges murdered which only after years information and number could be found about. I think my latest formulation is the most nutral and general that can get. Log in, log out (talk) 20:28, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

The article is from a political newspaper but the author is one of the Britain's most famous historians, curently working in Oxford.Faustian (talk) 20:30, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

Richard Overy is not less known. And again, i changed the formulation. Log in, log out (talk) 20:35, 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)

He's become civil so I'm holding off on such actions for now.Faustian (talk) 17:03, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

Read my explanations to Faustian. I'm not MVEi, and since when are there Hungarians in Lviv? I Know there are some Poles and Jews there, except Ukrainians. Log in, log out (talk) 08:30, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

Is it some kind of sadistic national sport here to try to get innocent people blocked?

Read my explanations to Faustian before you make funny conclusians Faustian was already answered on. If you try to get at me because of my opinions thats realy weak.

1. Political rethoric - I'm a National Bolshevik, you can find my rethorics on their web site, thats where it's taken from. They spread the information what part of Ukraine was were alot. As i understood, MVEi was also a National Bolshevik, which explaines where he took this rethoric from. Unlike MVEi who as i understood from his block history was a big edit war lover, i perfer compromises and exaples were given to Faustian. The same case for example is when you take to Communists. It's logical they would both use the same rethorics like Class struggle, State as an exploiting unit, and many more. Woulf you block all communists on Wikipedia for that? Is it a witch hunt?

2. I ran over into MVEi one time, and we were on different sides there. He wanted a one piece image on the Russians page, i supported the administrator whuch eventualy blocked him about making a many people collage.

Before playing in detective games which hurt the name of other people, i would suggest you read what i wrote to Faustian. Log in, log out (talk) 08:44, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

By the way. What i wrote there i wrote because i havent known things like that cant be written on Wikipedia, and i havent restored them when they were deleted. You copied what i wrote there on your user page, and thats a pure provocation. You know it was deleted so why to restore it if not to wake an argument? Why to wake an argument if not to block someone who is not in your opinions? User pages are created for other things. I was mature enough not to continue the discussion, and i havent returned their seens. You seem to insist on it for a reason.I already understood that it's your nationalists way to get people who write what you dont like from Ukrainian articles. I'm not MVEi, but i'm sick of Ukrainian nationalists trying to block me by lying i am, your the second already. I leave all Ukraine articles, they dont interest me that much to get people lying on my and puting black marks on my good name. Log in, log out (talk) 08:50, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

Your query

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)

This noticeboard might also be of use: Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard. --Folantin (talk) 16:51, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

Thanks!Faustian (talk) 16:56, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

An additional note: the UPA article contains alot of info from a document written in Ukrainian by the Institute of History of the UKrainian Acaemy of Sciences (here is an example: [9]). The source is a reliable one (even though, I've I've shown all over the talk page, misused by a particular editor) but is in pdf format, making it difficult to cut and paste the test onto wikipedia. I feel that a specific page number is sufficient. Indeed, as long as a foreign-language source is available on-line then for verifiability purposes the link and page number should be appropriate. What do you think? Because unfortunately on some topics some of the best sources aren't in English, and including the entire text of info used in footnotes would seem cumbersome. What is your opinion?Faustian (talk) 18:18, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

User:Jo0doe

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)

Thanks! I'm quite new when it comes to the non-editing side of wikipedia (if only all that was necessary was to edit....) so your advice is very helpful.Faustian (talk) 13:27, 12 July 2008 (UTC)

Proposed move

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)

Thanks! I'm too busy to teach myself how to archive (I'm sure it will seem simple once I've figured it out).Faustian (talk) 13:09, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

Simplest way is User talk:Faustian/archive1, cut and copy what you think is old enough there, and save. Then put a link on top of this page and the date up to which you archived it. All there is to it. --Kuban Cossack (По-балакаем?) 13:16, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

Thanks!Faustian (talk) 13:24, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

Thank you

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)

I agree with you 100% - there is never any justification for the murder of women, children, or innocent civilians by anybody. I strive to be as objective as possible in all my edits, which ironically means that sometimes I defend UPA despite viewing the actions of some of its members with complete revulsion.Faustian (talk) 02:33, 26 July 2008 (UTC)

your edit on expulsion article

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)

No offense taken. I reverted my reversion and will discuss as time permits.Faustian (talk) 18:53, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

Added source on pro-Nazi attitude being reason for population transfer

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)

Dispute concerning Ukrainian Insurgent Army

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)

topic ban

Do you think it would be wise to pursue a Wikipedia:Topic ban for a certain editor you know who repeatedly disrupts articles related to UPA? This has gone on long enough, in my opinion. Ostap 17:41, 16 October 2008 (UTC)

I agree absolutely, but am somewhat busy. Let me know what I can do.Faustian (talk) 17:59, 16 October 2008 (UTC)

DYK nom

I've nominated Conversion of Chelm Eparchy for Template talk:Did you know. What was the name of the bishop that was replaced? --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 16:29, 23 October 2008 (UTC)

A belated thanks!Faustian (talk) 04:07, 24 October 2008 (UTC)

Response to Joe template

Will eventually clean this up for use as a standardized response to Joe DOe, so I will no longer waste any time searching for examples. Will be significantly refined as time permits.

Jo0doe (talk) has been behaving disuptively for quite some time on this and other pages. After having engaged in a long fruitless discussion, I have decided to for the most part limit myself in doing so. Instead, I've created a standardized summary of who he is and how he behaves. While this might not apply to this specific case, it gives a good overview of the situation.

First, an examination of edit history. In terms of my own background, I have created several articles (one of which was nominated for a DYK [[11]] on a variety of topics, primarily but not exclusively concerning Ukraine, and have recieved several awards from editors of very different (and sometimes opposing) opinions, as seen on my talk page: [12] and edit history: [13].

Jo0doe (talk) , in contrast, just gets involved in revert wars on articles and arguments on talk pages with numerous other editors: [14]. While I and others have been drawn into revert warring and even name-calling by Jo0doe (talk), such behavior is limited to my interactions with him. With him, it is a universal approach to wikipedia. He has been warned for such here: [15] and here: [16] Despite such warnings he continues to smear others, such as here when he visciously implied that members of the Ukrainian community abroad are Nazi collaborators or murderers: [17] andwhen he even accused other editors of supporting Nazi collaborators: [18].

Since Jo0doe (talk) limits his disruptions to Ukrainian topics, most of the people who revert him seem to be Ukrainians. But not exclusively - he has also engaged in revert warring with User:Narking as seen here: [19].

In addition to the revert warring, we have a pattern of numerous disruptive edits. A good summary of the type of disuptions Jo0doe (talk) engages in is here: [20]. Note that this was written back in March 2008, and the problem with this one particular editor Jo0doe (talk) continues.

The real question is - why is he allowed to continue being disruptive? One reason may be that a lot of administrators are unfamiliar with the content and prefer to stay away from the mountain of info. But behind that smokescreen is the fact that Jo0doe (talk) engages in disruptive behavior.Faustian (talk) 13:21, 27 October 2008 (UTC)

Your name has been mentioned...

...by me here in relation to this. I thought I let you know as you may be willing to post your thoughts on this matter. Cheers, --Irpen 00:23, 1 November 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Kuban Kazak-Hillock65

An Arbitration case in which you commented has been opened, and is located here. Please add any evidence you may wish the Arbitrators to consider to the evidence sub-page, Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Kuban Kazak-Hillock65/Evidence. Please submit your evidence within one week, if possible. You may also contribute to the case on the workshop sub-page, Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Kuban Kazak-Hillock65/Workshop.

On behalf of the Arbitration Committee, Tznkai (talk) 00:45, 5 November 2008 (UTC)

Re:Tymothy Snyder vs. Original Archival Research

Unfortunately, my ability to police disruptive users is severly limited due to the ArbCom: if I was to block J, I am sure several users would scream there about my abuse of admin tools. They even complain about my warnings; there are proposals to prevent me from taking any administrative action on EE topics :( Feel free to comment on those. For now, I can still help - I will review J actions, see if another warning is appopriate, and I will chip in an AN/I discussion if you let me know its going on. PS. User RfC is another option.--_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 16:48, 5 November 2008 (UTC)

Thanks. I wish I had time for this, and hope that somebody will do it, but I don't right now (I chose to create an article this morning instead).Faustian (talk) 17:35, 6 November 2008 (UTC)

Come join me at Medzhybizh Bandurist (talk) 17:29, 13 November 2008 (UTC)

DYK for Soviet annexation of Western Ukraine, 1939-1940

On 19 November, 2008, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Soviet annexation of Western Ukraine, 1939-1940, 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.

BorgQueen (talk) 11:46, 19 November 2008 (UTC)

Barnstar

		The Working Man's Barnstar
		I, Tymek (talk) 03:24, 21 November 2008 (UTC), am awarding you this Barnstar in appreciation of your well-balanced contributions to the very touchy subject, which is Polish-Ukrainian history of World War Two years

I have been thinking about awarding you this Barnstar for a while, but I kept on forgetting. You deserve it and I really appreciate your work. Thank you. Tymek (talk) 03:24, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

Thank you!Faustian (talk) 03:46, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

You are welcome. You know that among other things, I am interested in the Volhynian massacre and stuff related to it. Feel free to check all my work on it and correct me whenever I am wrong. Tymek (talk) 23:45, 23 November 2008 (UTC)

I think that this article needs to be as objective as possible, free of both Ukrainian and Polish nationalist propgananda (as well as Soviet). Please see my comments on the talk page: [21]. And, I highly recommend this article: [22] written by Rafal Wnuk. best regardsFaustian (talk) 04:50, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

Dispute on various Ukraine-related articles

Hi - thanks for your messages on my talk page. Please accept my apologies for the delay in replying; I have been busy with the new Wikimedia UK organisation. It's disappointing to see that there are still major disputes over these articles. If you have not done so already, it might be a good idea to raise a Wikipedia:Requests for comment. If there has already been a request for comment, then Wikipedia:Mediation might be in order. With regard to the specific point over User:Jo0doe citing sources which are not available to other editors to review, I wonder if it might be worth asking any Ukraine-based editors at Wikipedia:WikiProject Ukraine, who are more likely to be able to access this information, if they would be able to sample a couple of statements to confirm that they have been given accurately and in context. If there are any specific matters with which I may be able to assist, please don't hesitate to ask. Warofdreams talk 14:29, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

History of Western Ukraine

For all its worth make sure you read Pochayiv Lavra article and see if you can integrate it into your series of articles. --Kuban Cossack (По-балакаем?) 18:22, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

Thanks - I'll see what I can do if I've got time.Faustian (talk) 00:44, 25 November 2008 (UTC)

Hi

I hope that reply didn't come off as being short with you. Sometimes people notice my Russian username and suppose it means things it doesn't. Best wishes, Durova^Charge! 16:20, 28 November 2008 (UTC)

No offence taken. Take care, Faustian (talk) 20:33, 28 November 2008 (UTC)

Ukraine during World War I

I found this article and attempted to add some details to it. Not a lot but perhaps you can finish off if I am to depart wikipedia in the near future. --Kuban Cossack (По-балакаем?) 17:40, 2 December 2008 (UTC)

Thank you - I will get to it eventually, though I plan to do more work on the Ukrainian Greek Catholic Church during and after World War II, and fixing the OUN and related articles first. I certainly hope that we don't lose you.Faustian (talk) 01:16, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

Не в службу а в дружбу.

Hey since you were the only of the few people that supported me on the arbcom I have to thank you for doing so, anyway it seems that justice has its own way (oh well 20th century has showed us both the truth of that statement) its the last to expect in most cases (so I in a sick way I am happy for those who will orgasm the moment I will be banned). Anyhow here is what I will ask you to do, I will continue to write articles on my talkpage and I will ask you to copypaste them into article space and give you ideas and support for your articles. Can you do that for me? That way the year will fly by very quick. --Kuban Cossack (По-балакаем?) 14:04, 4 December 2008 (UTC)

As long as it's okay with the powers-that-be and I have time (I will probably be rather busy fixing the OUN and related articles for a while), I'll do that. I will probably make some changes too, I hope you don't mind. Will you still be able to discuss articles on their talk pages during the ban? Best wishesFaustian (talk) 14:59, 4 December 2008 (UTC)

Have you read this: [[23]],its as if I am already banned...

Now then despite your agreement, I would like to point out several points on WP:BAN Unlike editors who have been temporarily blocked, banned users are not permitted to edit their user and user talk pages. so it seems e-mail will be the best way, or you can just go to my ru-wiki page, I will post the stuff there. The other point is that: Wikipedians are not permitted to post or edit material at the direction of a banned user, an activity sometimes called "proxying," unless they are able to confirm that the changes are verifiable and have independent reasons for making them. The last sentence sums up my position, after all if its genuinely referenced text then there is no wrong doing? Since in a way this contradicts WP:OWN which means that once something is on wikispace per GNU free documentation and public domain it is not illegal to copy from one wiki-resource to another any bits of pieces, unless its restricted copyrighted information e.g. non-free images etc.

Having said that, however, I don't want you to get into trouble for doing this, so at the end of the day if you refuse I would not be offended, but just for the record, don't let other people humiliate you for doing this. At the end of the day it really shows the true value of people. The fact that you agreed not knowing of the consequences shows me that you are a great man, for putting friends above all else, and shall have my deepest respect, worthy of our Cossack ancestors! Speaking of which, I would like to apologise for my harsh comments when we first clashed there. To this I add for the benefit of Folantin and Hillock reading this, know that I view my ban as a punishment for that and only that alone. I truly regret offending those who did not deserve it and I do feel guilty for that, and for the time that was wasted on arguing with those people, when we could have put it into writing volumes and volumes of articles.

Finally Faustian, let noone judge you for your support to me, for WP:BAN clearly states: As such, it is inappropriate to bait banned users, or to take advantage of their ban to mock them. Then again its a test for you and me to see whether they have any dignity left for themselves. At the same time don't seek to avenge me.

Well that's really it, it says on WP:BAN pride and dignity intact. That the case for me and those of Folantin and Hillock quite the opposite! I guess I can see now why, in all the WP:BATTLEs involved, they sought victory over consensus. After all consensus is right and often too compromising, yet having victory is just pleasant, and hey, their right behaivour has set an example of what I need to aspire to after I return...шутка.

So here I am about to feel this victory, one which is entirely my, and they in this arbcom, Сами себе рога пообламали!! Dear arbitrators, you might as well not wait for the case to close and ban me now, the sooner you do so, the sooner I can pop the cooled Sovetskoye bubbly and celebrate my VICTORY. (And the sooner will the year pass that way).

Once again Faustian, Спасибо тебе за все! Такие вещи не забываються. Удачи тебе и с наступающим! --Kuban Cossack (По-балакаем?) 16:48, 4 December 2008 (UTC)

I appreciate your kind words. As long as all info is properly referenced/verifiable (and I will double check before putting anything in), I see no reason why not to include it or incorporate it. I have independent reasons for using them - I find other POV's helpful as long as they are not disruptive in working on articles. Again, best wishes and I look forward to hearing from you. And I'm removing the personal attacks from your message.Faustian (talk) 17:30, 4 December 2008 (UTC)

Location of the inkblot image

Wasn't there a consensus to put the image lower on the page, as you just did? Ward3001 (talk) 03:01, 16 December 2008 (UTC)

Yes, and this was why the page had been stable for awhile.Faustian (talk) 03:03, 16 December 2008 (UTC)

Talk:Moreschi

Hi, Moreschi is having some problems with Wikipedia administration right now so he is unlikely to respond quickly to Jodoe troubles. And if he wouldn't block the troll concerned, I can almost bet there's no-one who would do it. This is the problem with Wikipedia: admins are avoiding responsibility, and those sysops who do take responsibility for hindering disruption, may 'get hurt' ;-).
But I would suggest trying Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Arbitration enforcement, with an appropriate diff to Jodoe being added to the list of restricted user accounts. --Pan Miacek (t) 15:12, 17 December 2008 (UTC)

I'm not sure if it would be applicable, as no arbcom decision was involved in the ban (that page seems to be limited to people who have violated arbcom decisions). Any other suggestions?Faustian (talk) 17:38, 17 December 2008 (UTC)

I noticed this. Joe has been subject to these discretionary sanctions after he was added to the list. --Pan Miacek (t) 18:50, 17 December 2008 (UTC)

Reply

Hi. This material almost certainly fails WP:V: "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".

Besides which, I imagine it also fails our policy on reliable sources (who publishes this website? Is it academically respectable?) and WP:NPOV (giving undue weight to non-mainstream theories).

You could also try getting an opinion on the Fringe theories noticeboard, which is frequented by a few admins interested in this sort of dispute (including Moreschi). Cheers. --Folantin (talk) 16:47, 17 December 2008 (UTC)

JoODoe gets around that by claiming that there are no "English-language sources of equal quality." So he keeps using these unverifiable sources. I've caught him systematically cherry-picking from books that I can look at, (here is just one example: [24]), but some foreign language ones are inaccessible. I feel like simply reverting any edit he makes when he uses a source I or some other editor can't check on, but that would be tedious and questionable.Faustian (talk) 17:38, 17 December 2008 (UTC)

It's finished now: [25]. --Pan Miacek and his crime-fighting dog (t) 21:55, 17 December 2008 (UTC)

DYK nomination of Ukrainian National Democratic Alliance

Hello! Your submission of Ukrainian National Democratic Alliance at the Did You Know nominations page has been reviewed, and there still are some issues that may need to be clarified. Please review the comment(s) underneath your nomination's entry and respond there as soon as possible. Thank you for contributing to Did You Know! Dravecky (talk) 07:43, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

For future reference

[26].Faustian (talk) 20:33, 24 January 2009 (UTC)

[27]Faustian (talk) 05:57, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

New!

Hi! I noticed that you didn't announce your latest Ukrainian articles at Portal:Ukraine/New article announcements. Would you please do so in future so the rest of the community can add there knowledge to the articles! I also noticed that your not a member of WP project Ukraine, maybe you don't believe in it or maybe you simply haven't been invited, if so consider this your invitation (click on add for more information)! — Mariah-Yulia (talk) 17:51, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for the invitation! I think it's a wonderful project; unfortunately what time I have available for wiki, I spend editing or creating articles and don't have time nor patience to figure other stuff out (such as creating categories). I do appeciate the invite and will try to remember to announce articles on new article anouncements.Faustian (talk) 04:38, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

Project Ukraine

Hi

Nice to see you thinking of joining Project Ukraine, its a farily small group of people, and sometimes difficult to get answers as they are often not around, but if you need any help with tags etc, by all means get in touch and I will try and help.

I admired your chat and the way you controlled yourself in open attacks on the 14thSS pages. (I was wondering what had happened to Joodooe or whatever he was called, then saw the posts above.)

cheers --Chaosdruid (talk) 04:51, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

Can you look at it ?

Hi Faustin, This page Collaboration with the Axis Powers during World War II is being vandalizd by the same IP from here [[28]]. He just keeps inserting the same false informantion about ethnic Poles being allowed into SS. When you get a chance can you look at it ? He keeps reverting everybody, I think for the 5th time today, insisting that he is "right". Thanks--Jacurek (talk) 01:00, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

If it's his fifth revert, then he violated 3R rule and should be blocked by an administrator. regards,Faustian (talk) 01:43, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

Ya, he already is. Hope he will become a good contributor one day.--Jacurek (talk) 02:22, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

Ukrainian regional difference

Future article? One soruce: [29]. And another: [30].Faustian (talk) 19:30, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

14th SS page

"176 soldiers from 14th join Polish army after surrendering" a little quote from the Rimini section has been tagged by Jacurek with Ref needed. I have posted on the Division chat page but as it states "Ukrainian sources" and I cannot read/write Ukrainian I cannot go any further

Any chance you could help ? thanks --Chaosdruid (talk) 00:00, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

I'll look into it when I have time.Faustian (talk) 00:01, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

Thanks guys. I just want to read about. In English or Polish would be great. No rush.--Jacurek (talk) 00:13, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

According to a Ukrainian-language website: [31]

Завдяки старанням генерала Шандрука Дивізія "Галичина" - 1-ша дивізія УНА не була видана на розправу большевикам, незважаючи на всі їхні домагання. Давні зв'язки Шандрука з польськими генералами, а зокрема особисте його знайомство з відомим ген. Владиславом Андерсом - організатором польської екзильної армії (де, до речі, було бл. 20 тисяч вояків-українців у Другому корпусі), дозволило деяким дивізійникам (польське джерело подає 176) уникнути навіть довгого сидіння в англійському полоні в Італії після закінчення війни - вони перейшли до армії ген. Андерса, що вважалася "аліянтською".

The translation: Thanks to the efforts of general Shandruk, the Galician Division - 1st Division of the Ukrainian National Army - was not given over to the Bolsheviks despite all their efforts. Longstanding ties between Shandruk and Polish generals, in partiuclar his personal acquaintance with general Wladyslaw Anders, organizer of the Polish army in exile (in which 20,000 Ukrainians fought, in the 2nd corp) allowed some Division members (Polosh sources claim 176) to avoid long waits as English POWS in Italy after the end of the war - they went over to the army of gen. Anders, which was considered "allied"....

That isn't of course the most reliable source.

BTW, could someone archive most of this talk page? I've forgotten how to do it...Faustian (talk) 04:45, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

Thanks Faustian (sorry can't help with archiving,I don't know how myself, I did mine manually)--Jacurek (talk) 17:13, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

Archive 2

Hi

I've taken up to end of July 2008 and added to /archive2
Do you want the pretty box to go with it also ?
If so I will have to move the pages to Archive 1 and Archive 2

I've created the new archive at /Archive 2 and copied old one to /Archive 1 so that the box at the top of the page works.
We did create a search to go in there, if u want that put in let me know.
If u like it u can delete the other pages (/archive1 & /archive2) or let me know on my chat page and I'll tidy up for u.
I did it this way so that if you want to add the bot, this is the way it expects the structure to be :¬)
--Chaosdruid (talk) 20:20, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

Thank you!!!!Faustian (talk) 01:55, 14 February 2009 (UTC)

My revert on SS-Galizien

Hi Faustian, Sorry I reverted, but this looks like a reliable source: Aleksander Korman, Nieukarane zbrodnie SS-Galizien z lat 1943-1945 (Unpunished crimes of SS-Galizien in the years 1943-1945), London 1989 I have also seen something about it on the IPN site some time ago. Will try dig it out.--Jacurek (talk) 15:25, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

I added few more sources on that site, including the president Lech Kaczynski speech were he refers to the massacre (and we know that he is FAR from being anti-Ukrainian). There is plenty of Polish language sources but I could not find much about it in English language. Can you search and see if there is anything about it in Ukrainian language? Maybe we should compare both accounts first ?--Jacurek (talk) 17:00, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

IPN has nothing about the Chodaczkow Wielki massacre ... --Jacurek (talk) 18:16, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

I don't think that anything by Korman is a reliable source, given the very negative description of Korman and his colleagues by Wnuk of the IPN. If other sources confirm this it's another matter, but a fact only claimed by Korman shouldn't be here IMO. Faustian (talk) 22:52, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

Ukrainians in Brazil

I have seen, as I know you have also, a certain anonymous user pushing a what seems to be a very high number of Ukrainians in Brazil. Are you completely sure about the number here? I don't speak Spanish and can't read the reference. I ask because I went and looked at the Ukrainian wikipedia page and they also had over one million, but the source was dead. Russian wikipedia also has a high number but also to the same dead source. Of course this is probably the same person changing the dates in all languages. Do you have any idea of where this high number is coming from? Ostap 02:56, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

No, I don't know where the high number comes from. The Ukrainian Brazilian article currently has the referenced 400,000 figure. The Ukrainian wiki page is frankly bizarre, claiming that after World War II 200,000 Ukrainians entered Parana state in Brazil[32]. The 400,000 figure was from 1994, so the number may be higher now but 1 million is not realistic at all.Faustian (talk) 03:22, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

DYK for Kyryl Studynsky

On March 26, 2009, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Kyryl Studynsky, 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.

Shubinator (talk) 05:14, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

Rorschach

Faustian, I truly appreciate what you're saying. But it has become painfully obvious through the years that on some issues (the Rorschach being one), that Wikipedia is a joke, (And for those of you waiting anxiously to announce that statement on the Rorschach talk page, that doesn't mean I take the quality of the Rorschach article any less seriously. It's just a statement of fact about Wikipedia unfortunately). If people who not only have no knowledge of the test, but who also don't care to have any knowledge or allow science to be considered in the least -- if those people can do as they please (which is very likely to happen, if not now then eventually), what's the point of trying to make the article anything even remotely resembling respectable. So this is a case of calling it like I see it. When the editors who ram their opinions down the throats of those of us who know something about the test have no respect for the science of the test, that needs to be pointed out to the world. And the talk page is the only place to do that. I don't know any other way except on the talk page to let the world know how some editors have made a joke of the article. Again, I respect what you have always tried to do, especially your even-handedness and sense of civil discussion, but other editors have no respect for either the test or the science behind it. Unfortunately, they are increasingly coming to dominate the article. Why would someone with no knowledge of the test really care about where an image is placed? I don't care where images are placed in article of which I have little knowledge (except for policy violations, of course). It certainly isn't because they are concerned about the quality of the article. It's simply because they know they can do it and they know we don't want it that way. I feel confident that if we could wipe everyone's memory of these conflicts and you and I were pushing to have the image at the top, they would be pushing to have it at the bottom. That has become the "culture" of this article. It has happened on other articles as well, and as this process plays out over time I suspect that the world will see more clearly what is going on here. Respected national news sources have begun increasingly commenting on the unreliability of Wikipedia. This article that you, I, and others have tried to keep up to respectable standards is just one example. Wikipedia either needs to get control of this problem, or crumble under the weight of its lack of control. So unless/until it falls, I for one will do my little part to let others know how ridiculous some of the editing here has become. Thanks. Best wishes. Ward3001 (talk) 22:05, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

Please ecuse my intrusion Faustian, but I tend to agree with all of what Ward has said above. Missing your moderating input, but can understand why you may be reluctant to return! Regards. Martinevans123 (talk) 20:53, 25 May 2009 (UTC)

I was busy during Memorial Day weekend and did not go near the computer...Faustian (talk) 02:58, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

Probably a very healthy decision. :) Ward3001 (talk) 03:00, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

Rorschach test

Hello Faustian, I am not the only one who has said they believe consensus has changed and I will not debate what each of us feels the definition of consensus is because I feel it is pointless and does nothing to resolve the original argument at hand. It feels as if you are grasping at straws and trying to elude the issue. If you have a problem with me you may take it up at Wikipedia:Etiquette or Wikipedia:Requests for comment/User conduct. Garycompugeek (talk) 21:45, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

I meant no offence in my comments, nor am I eluding any issue. I have no problem with you or your conduct, at least not on the level of reporting you anywhere. It does seem, however, that you are eluding the issue. If you believe that consensus has changed, the basis of your belief is quite relevent to the discussion. The fact that you refuse to discuss what it is that has changed seems to imply that you concede the point. If not, please explain why not. Because the page on consensus makes it crystal clear what consensus is and very clearly it is not what you claim it to be. Your ongoing refusal to engage in a discussion clarifying the issue is notable.Faustian (talk) 21:52, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

No offense taken. You simply do not understand that I do not care what your views of consensus are. You may find it notable and/or that I concede the point. I really do not care. Once again, if you wish to debate what consensus is the fellows at Wikipedia talk:Consensus would love to have you. Simply saying you do not agree with me is sufficient, a treatise on what is consensus is quite unecessary. Garycompugeek (talk) 22:22, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

It's not my views, it's what consensus is. Read the page devoted to it. You propose changes based upon alleged change in consensus when you base your proposal upon a faulty understanding of consensus.Faustian (talk) 22:25, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

Talk:Rorschach test/2009 consensus review

Thank you for noticing those missed and modified voices. Since I have signed the report, I would appreciate it if no one edits it directly; however, I welcome further suggestions for amendments brought up either on the article talk page or my talk page and I will incorporate accordingly. Please continue to review to ensure I haven't overlooked anything else. cheers, –xeno^talk 15:55, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

No problem. Please see my comments on your talk page. I have to say, although I do not doubt your good intentions you do seem to err on one particular side. Do you think you might have had biases that may have unwittingly afffected your work - which generally is laudable?Faustian (talk) 16:13, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

I'm sure we can both agree that neither you, nor I, is immune to potential subconcious biases...which is why I posted it at WP:AN for review. I have, to the best of my ability, tried to be fair and impartial to all viewpoints. I'm working through your clarifications, please forgive any delay. –xeno^talk 16:59, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

Agreed, and thank you.Faustian (talk) 17:01, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

Please don't forget to move or probably remove Black Falcon. He's the one who suggested placing the image in the test materials section and recently has expressed nuetrality.Faustian (talk) 17:14, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

Yes, do bear with me. Trying to incorporate and reply to your clarification requests whilst making an addendum section to document these changes and also provide for updates to editor positions made after the fact. –xeno^talk 17:19, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

• Faustian, I will be addressing your latest concern left at my talk page today (one request fulfilled already: [33]); to make the review focus more on the dispute and less on the participants. I think it's appropriate that I finish this to our mutual satisfaction before notifying everyone, which is also on my to-do list, don't you agree?
• Can you do me a favour and leave further clarification requests at Talk:Rorschach test/2009 consensus review/addendum#Clarification requests? Both to keep things all in one place, and also so that your concerns can be visible even if I decline to act on them. Feel free to leave me a short note at my talk page when you add something there and I will be sure to address it ASAP. –xeno^talk 15:30, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

I think we have most of the concerns you've raised with regards to the review worked out. We just need a neutral way to poll the people that were included. What do you think of the following, added in the addendum section under the clarification section:

---

===The clarifications===

Below you can file a quick clarification or affirmation based on your current position towards the placement of the image. Simply add your name to the list. Brief commentary is acceptable, but for longer statements, use the section above.

I feel the image belongs in the lead and would object to it being moved.

I am open to other options, if convincing arguments were put forth for moving the image, but presently feel it belongs in the lead.

I feel the image belongs in the "Test materials" section.

Other quick clarification (use the above "CR" section for longer statements)

---

(I'll draft the wording of the message while I await your response. Feel free to add to/tweak to the above directly to make suggestions). –xeno^talk 23:39, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

I would reword in point 2: "I am open to other options for the sake of compromise, if convincing arguments were put forth for moving the image, but presently feel it belongs in the lead" or something similar. I feel that compromise ought to be explictly stated among the options because it seems to be the most important reason to agree to format. The bottom line is, some people prefer the image in the lead and are unwilling to compromise, others prefer it there but are willing to compromise, others don't want the image but will accept it if it is at least not in the lead, and others absolutely don't want the image at all. I think that by mentioning compromise explicitly among the options we will have no doubt about where people stand - how many are willing to compromise and how many refuse to do so. It'll be good to get that out of the way.

Overall, I think it's excellent and I thank you for your hard extensive work and impartial approach. I will likely be away from the computer all day tomorrow, and will not respond again until Sunday. bestFaustian (talk) 05:53, 30 May 2009 (UTC)

Better rewording of point 2: "Although I prefer that the image belong in the lead, I am willing to accept placing the image elsewhere in the article for the sake of compromise in order to accomodate other editors' opinions and bring peace to the article." (or something to that effect) And I'm off till tomorrow!Faustian (talk) 14:12, 30 May 2009 (UTC)

I ce'd that a bit and added it as option 2, moving the old option lower down as your suggestion significantly changed the spirit of the comment. So... I think we're almost ready to poll everyone, yes? What do you think of the below in terms of neutrality? –xeno^talk 13:36, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

==A note re: Talk:Rorschach test/2009 consensus review==

Please be advised that I have recently conducted a review of the Rorschach test (formerly Rorschach inkblot test) talk page and archives. At some point, you have commented on the issue of the display and/or placement of the Rorschach inkblot image. Based on my understanding of your comment(s), I have placed you into one of three categories. I am issuing this note so that you can review how I have placed you, and to signal if this is an appropriate placement and/or to make known your current thoughts on this matter. You may either participate in discussion at the article talk page or leave a note at my talk page; but to keep things in one place, you should also clarify at Talk:Rorschach test/2009 consensus review/addendum. Longer statements may be made here or quick clarifications/affirmations based on several pre-written statements can be made here. Best regards, ~~~~

Excellent! Your review has proven what people's preferences are, now hopefully we'll know where people stand in terms of the willingness to compromise with others' opinions. Incidentally, I asked the "experts" about consensus on their input regarding what consensus means insuch a case here:Wikipedia talk:Consensus. Their opinions are evenly divided. Two experts feel that limiting the image violates the NOTCENSORED principle, and that this violation trumps any possible consensus (without acknowledging that in some cases the meaning of censorship is not black-and-white and without making clear whether they would consider moving the image to be censorship). However, two other experts seem to indicate that a compromise ought to be reach for it to be consensus. One states "And though we disregard what external organizations want us to write or not write, we do not disregard what our editors want to write and not write." (which I suppose supports a compromise so as not to disregard what some of our editors want). The other states that "Consensus should be, when at all possible, when the concerns of all editors are addressed as much as is reasonable without tilting the individual points too far one way or another. For some topics of discussion this may not be possible (whether a source is valid for example, or whether a subject is presented with a neutral point of view). For yet others it should be possible to work out compromises (designing templates, proposing changes to the MediaWiki software, etc)." In my opinion, moving the image would tilt it far in the direction of those who don't want to limit it at all but would still demonstrate some acceptance of the minority's viewpoint, in a way that would probably match the 1/3:2/3 preference for limiting/not limiting the image. It would be a true reflection of what most editors want.

My view is that censorship applies with respect to not including the image at all. However, image placement (in the lead? in the methods or test materials?) is an issue of editorship rather than of censorship. An article isn't "censored" because it's on page 2 of a newspaper rather than page 1. So therefore, IMO, censorship isn't an issue here and the rules regarding compromise and taking various editors' opinions apply. If it turns out that your poll shows that the overwhelming majority refuse to want to compromise on this issue, I think that the next step (mediation?) would be in order. But let's see what happens now, first.Faustian (talk) 14:13, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

Sounds good. Going to send out the notes now. –xeno^talk 14:20, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

A note re: Talk:Rorschach test/2009 consensus review

Please be advised that I have recently conducted a review of the Rorschach test (formerly Rorschach inkblot test) talk page and archives. At some point, you have commented on the issue of the display and/or placement of the Rorschach inkblot image. Based on my understanding of your comment(s), I have placed you into one of three categories. I am issuing this note so that you can review how I have placed you, and to signal if this is an appropriate placement and/or to make known your current thoughts on this matter. You may either participate in discussion at the article talk page or leave a note at my talk page; but to keep things in one place, you should also clarify at Talk:Rorschach test/2009 consensus review/addendum. Longer statements may be made here or quick clarifications/affirmations based on several pre-written statements can be made here. Best regards, –xeno^talk 14:53, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

Ukrainians

Can you please help me on the Ukrainian American page. A user keeps returning Mike Ditka to the "representation" images, despite Ditka's only link to Ukraine is a surname from his father. There are no sources indicating anything about Ditka being a "Ukrainian American." It seems to have worked when you removed Pahlaniuk. Bulldog123 00:03, 7 June 2009 (UTC)

Ditka unliek Palhniuk is legitimately a Ukrainian. He mentioned it himself in his autobiography and the guy speaks a few words of Ukrainian. He isn't fluent or even very active in the community (unlike Palance or Vera Farmiga) but is definitely Ukrainian. Palahniuk in contrast had a Ukrainian father who divorced when Palahniuk was 5, and was estranged from the family for most of the author's life.Faustian (talk) 01:15, 7 June 2009 (UTC)

Email

I sent you an email. Ward3001 (talk) 21:39, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

RE: A second e-mail

I replied (actually a question). Ward3001 (talk) 14:06, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

RFC

I'm about to file an RFC that asks "Should we limit or otherwise restrict encyclopedic content based on a potential for harm to result from displaying the same?" I'm going to ask the regulars to limit their participation in this RFC as much as possible. However, given that you're about to head off on vacation, would you prefer I hold off until you return? I don't want it to look like a process was began in your absence and prevented you from observing its genesis. –xeno^talk 14:03, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

I would add that the potential for harm comes from reliable sources (it's more than just the opinion of some editors, but of the professional body that deals with this topic, and this should be reflected in the question). I would also word it differently. Perhaps instead of "should we limit or otherwise restrict" which is technically correct something like "Should we take into acount the concerns of" "or compromise with respect to the display of" or something like that. In other words, it shouldn't give the impression that we're trying to necessarily ban the images based on harm; rather we should be careful and not have them to any extent more than absolutely necessary - to be very conservative - based on harm. In other words, should the potential of harm play a role in what we do with the images? I don't have time to hunt for this right now, but there had been references to avoiding harm in the biogrpahy of living persons section that someone had posted (which provides a precedent for wikipedia avoiding harm), and then the medical advice stuff as well. I found this which is interesting: Wikipedia:No Moral Code. Basically, stating that wikipedia has no moral code was rejected. It is noteworthy, too, that in the case of the images the display is directly harmful. Meaning, unlike a wikipedia page about pipebombs, the harm not caused by the person who makes a choice to misuse the infoermation that he has gotten from wikipedia. Rather, the wikipedia page iself is directly harmful (such is the nature of a psychological test based on images, when the images are put onto the page). This distinction is very important and ought to be mentioned. You are not giving a person a gun whose use ir misuse is his repsonsibility. You are pulling the trigger on him yourself when you put the image on. (by hiding it, or only having the image at the bottom, or providing links to the images, you are in contrast putting the responsibility on the user, giving him a choice).Faustian (talk) 14:59, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

If the regulars from both sides do indeed stay away then I have no problem with you posting this while I'm gone. Actually better to post this sooner than later; I will probably be too busy after my return to contribute much for a few days or a few weeks anyways (but maybe not) and no point to delay everything by a couple of weeks. My concern is that this becomes a one-sided thing with massive contributions and arguments from editors wanting to keep the images, because I wouldn't be able to offer rebuttals, and Ward seems to have been quiet for a while too.Faustian (talk) 14:59, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

Based on your suggestions I've amended the section title what I had drafted. Please provide your thoughts on if this meets your above concerns, if you have time:

It looks good, my only concern is that if people have questions and need clarification they will get answers only from one side of the debate while I'm gone. Could you contact Ward to see if he'll be around to cover this? Will Martin Evans or Bob be willing to do this?Faustian (talk) 15:15, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

I'll be around to provide answers as neutrally as possible, but I'll ping Ward. Martin and Bob both seem to be currently active as well. –xeno^talk 15:29, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

Sounds good. I really do appreciate all your efforts here. I thought about it and would like you to consider a minor change in the wording of the last sentence: "Iff we are willing to accept this as a possibility, even if slight, should we then heed these concerns and compromise by balancing the need to offer information with limitations or other restrictions of our content in order to reduce the potential for harm?"

I'm also wondering if noting that unlike in the case of movie spoilers or book spoilers people might not know enough about tests to know that seeing an image from one might spoil it for themselves.

Anyways, this may be my last meassage for a while - I've got to pack! Best wishes to you and thanks for your hard work and effort.Faustian (talk) 16:00, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

Yes, sounds reasonable. I'll try to work it in. Have a good vacation! –xeno^talk 16:57, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

Proposed content

== A note to the regulars regarding the below RFC ==

To the regulars: Let's try and limit our participation as much as possible in the below RFC I've just filed. I think we all know very well where each other stands - and let's see what the wider community thinks. Feel free to respond to questions from new faces, but at the very least, please do not ping-pong back and forth with other regulars. ~~~~

== Should the potential for harm to result inform our editorial decisions regarding encyclopedic content? ==

The debate ongoing above centers on a single issue: harm.

It is posited that disseminating Rorschach inkblot images may result in harm, due to pre-exposing the reader to the images and possibly tainting the results of a Rorschach test they may take in the future. Because one can't "unsee" an image, having the image in the lead of the article does not give the reader the opportunity to read about potential harm that may result before seeing it. It is also suggested that we not display all ten images in the article to further reduce potential harm.

Both the American Psychological Association and the British Psychological Society have gone on record that harm may result to the general public as a result of dissemination of test materials. It should also be noted that the (potential) harm is "passively transmitted", i.e., it's not the same type of harm that might result from explaining how pipe bombs are constructed.

Iff we are willing to accept this as a possibility, even if slight, should we then heed these concerns and compromise to limit or otherwise restrict our content to reduce the potential for harm? ~~~~

Welcome back! See Talk:Rorschach test#RFC: Should the potential for harm to result inform our editorial decisions regarding encyclopedic content?. –xeno^talk 03:01, 5 July 2009 (UTC)

Thanks! I have alot of real world stuff to catch up on and won't be able to wade into this for a few days. On quick glance, however, I am disappointed that Chillum has chosen to add numerous comments despite the purpose of this having been to get other voices.Faustian (talk) 14:44, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

A request for comment is for everyone, not just new people. Chillum 14:57, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

Xeno politelt requested "To the regulars: Let's try and limit our participation as much as possible in the below RFC I've just filed. I think we all know very well where each other stands - and let's see what the wider community thinks. Feel free to respond to questions from new faces, but at the very least, please do not ping-pong back and forth with other regulars" and you promptly flooded the rfc with your old arguments.Faustian (talk) 15:20, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

Well, to play devils advocate here, Chillum did create a new section (the kick at the can section) rather than typing his statements in the RFC. Unless you're talking about the "Point of order" section, which I guess just stemmed from Chillum not reading the article closely enough. –xeno^talk 15:26, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

The first two comments seem to have been by Chillum and Dreamguy.Faustian (talk) 03:48, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

Original or derived work

A little help, please. Can you tell the difference between the original and the modern? Are the 10 images found in the commons [34] and on the current Wikipedia article the original Rorschach inkblots as created by Rorschach or if they are a modified version under copyright by Hans Huber Publishers, Bern Switzerland, 1994. Perhaps the originals are still safe and secure, away from the internet. Danglingdiagnosis (talk) 02:33, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

OUN / Volyn Massacres

Where should a quote like this be used?

“The 1943 decision of Ukrainian nationalists to cleanse was, among other things, a strategic calculation based upon news of the Soviet victory at Stalingrad in February 1943, and the judgment that German occupation was both unbearable and temporary.”

It's from Snyder's "The Causes of Ukrainian-Polish Ethnic Cleansing 1943", great read and goes deep on the ideology and circumstances for what happened

--Львівске (talk) 14:09, 15 July 2009 (UTC)

There needs to be a section in "background" devoted to the OUN-B. But this might fit into the prelude section. Faustian (talk) 16:17, 15 July 2009 (UTC)