User talk:Ушкуйник

July 2014
Hello, I'm Iryna Harpy. Your recent edit to the page Ruthenians appears to have added incorrect information, so I have removed it for now. If you believe the information was correct, please cite a reliable source or discuss your change on the article's talk page. If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thank you. Iryna Harpy (talk) 00:26, 28 July 2014 (UTC)

Please do not add or change content, as you did to Yuriy Drohobych, without verifying it by citing a reliable source. Please review the guidelines at Citing sources and take this opportunity to add references to the article. Thank you. Iryna Harpy (talk) 01:01, 28 July 2014 (UTC)

Please stop your disruptive editing. If you continue to change genres without discussion or sources, as you did at Kyrylo Rozumovskyi, you may be blocked from editing. Iryna Harpy (talk) 01:45, 28 July 2014 (UTC)
 * Dear Iryna, I don't make some kind of "disruptive editing", I just know something more about Razumovsky, as well as about Ruthenians and Yuriy Drohobych, to distinguish fake from real information. 1) Ruthenians is just a Latin form for Rus' people. The form "Rusin" was used not only on the territory of Rus', which was in Polish–Lithuanian Commonwealth, but also in other places, for example in Tver' by Afanasy Nikitin, 2) Yuriy Drohobych was known as "Magister Georgius Drohobich de Russia". See the source:, 3) I didn't expect, that it is some new information for you, that Grigory Teplov was an adjutant of Kirill Razumovsky, I thought it is clear. Best wishes, Ушкуйник (talk) 06:33, 3 August 2014 (UTC)
 * If you have issues with the nomenclature, you should be aware yourself that using Litopys affords only a limited number of public domain essays and articles in both Russian and Ukrainian... many of which contradict each other (and not, as one might believe, as to a Ukrainian version of history as contradicting a Russian version). Litopys is merely a resource and not a definitive, consistently reliable secondary resource.


 * I won't be available for discussions tomorrow however, I'm more than happy to discuss details with you soon (as I have illnesses in the family to attend to IRL). Cheers for now. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 06:52, 3 August 2014 (UTC)
 * Dear Iryna, I'm agree with you, that the website of Litopys is not the most reliable source, but you can find the same information on the portrait of Drohobych (the original of this picture is in Drohobych): Here you can see the same form of his name: "Magister Georgius Drohobich de Russia". You can find also this form in the research of Yaroslav Isayevich, which was well known as a specialist in the works of Drohobych. Best wishes, Ушкуйник (talk) 06:59, 3 August 2014 (UTC)

November 2014
Welcome to Wikipedia. At least one of your recent edits, such as the edit you made to Dmytro Yavornytsky, did not appear to be constructive and has been reverted or removed. Although everyone is welcome to contribute to Wikipedia, please take some time to familiarise yourself with our policies and guidelines. You can find information about these at the welcome page which also provides further information about contributing constructively to this encyclopedia. If you only meant to make some test edits, please use the sandbox for that. If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you may leave a message on my talk page.'' Please stop your WP:POV pushing. If you continue with your attempts at the Russification of content surrounding anyone and anything occupied by the Russian Empire, I'll be somewhat suspicious as to whether you're actually WP:NOTHERE.'' Iryna Harpy (talk) 01:13, 8 November 2014 (UTC)

Please refrain from making unconstructive edits to Wikipedia, as you did at Gregory Skovoroda. Your edits appear to be disruptive and have been reverted or removed. Please ensure you are familiar with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines, and please do not continue to make edits that appear disruptive, until the dispute is resolved through consensus. Continuing to edit disruptively could result in loss of editing privileges. '' Please read WP:POINT. Your activities have become somewhat WP:POINTy.'' Iryna Harpy (talk) 01:16, 8 November 2014 (UTC)
 * If you are engaged in an article content dispute with another editor then please discuss the matter with the editor at their talk page, or the article's talk page. Alternatively you can read Wikipedia's dispute resolution page, and ask for independent help at one of the relevant notice boards.
 * If you are engaged in any other form of dispute that is not covered on the dispute resolution page, please seek assistance at Wikipedia's Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents.
 * Dear Iryna Harpy, I don't agree with you, that my contribution is somehow familiar with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. I just try to correct such things in articles, which I can definetly prove. Your accusation is irrelevant. Best wishes, Ушкуйник (talk) 00:51, 9 November 2014 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for December 12
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Cossack Hetmanate, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Part. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ* Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 09:10, 12 December 2014 (UTC)

December 2014
Your recent editing history at Nikolai Gogol shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war. To resolve the content dispute, please do not revert or change the edits of others when you get reverted. Instead of reverting, please use the article's talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. The best practice at this stage is to discuss, not edit-war. See BRD for how this is done. If discussions reach an impasse, you can then post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection.

Being involved in an edit war can result in your being blocked from editing&mdash;especially if you violate the three-revert rule, which states that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Undoing another editor's work—whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert. Also keep in mind that while violating the three-revert rule often leads to a block, you can still be blocked for edit warring&mdash;even if you don't violate the three-revert rule&mdash;should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly. Iryna Harpy (talk) 23:16, 21 December 2014 (UTC)
 * Dear Iryna Harpy, see the sources on the page Gogol. Best wishes, Ушкуйник (talk) 23:24, 21 December 2014 (UTC)
 * I have seen them and read them properly. You haven't. Poltava has nothing to do with your German misreading of Polen or the English language version of Poland. Please see the relevant talk page. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 23:29, 21 December 2014 (UTC)


 * Dear Iryna Harpy, see again: 1. Poltava has nothing to do with the problem of Ukrainian-Polish origin of Gogol, I don't understand, why we speak here about Poltava at all. Ушкуйник (talk) 23:34, 21 December 2014 (UTC)
 * Please take it to the article talk page. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 00:28, 22 December 2014 (UTC)

Notice of Edit warring noticeboard discussion
Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion involving you at Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring regarding a possible violation of Wikipedia's policy on edit warring. The thread is Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring. Thank you. Iryna Harpy (talk) 22:52, 22 December 2014 (UTC)

December 2014
This is your only warning; if you move a page maliciously again, as you did at Hetmans of Zaporizhian Cossacks and Rozumovsky to Rasumofsky per this move, you may be blocked from editing without further notice.  In both instances, it is not possible that were unaware of the contentious nature of the move and did not follow basic protocol before applying the db move template. Iryna Harpy (talk) 00:40, 23 December 2014 (UTC)

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 31 hours for edit warring, as you did at Cossack Hetmanate. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions. If you think there are good reasons why you should be unblocked, you may appeal this block by adding the following text below this notice:. However, you should read the guide to appealing blocks first. During a dispute, you should first try to discuss controversial changes and seek consensus. If that proves unsuccessful, you are encouraged to seek dispute resolution, and in some cases it may be appropriate to request page protection. slakr \ talk / 04:26, 23 December 2014 (UTC)

3 Revert Rule
I'm sure you're familiar with the WP:3RR policy. The Cossack Hetmanate is not an exception. Please learn to respect the WP:Consensus on the talk page, rather than resort to WP:Edit warring. If you continue, you may be WP:Blocked from editing Wikipedia.--BoguSlav 20:59, 26 December 2014 (UTC)

Notice of Edit warring noticeboard discussion
Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion involving you at Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring regarding a possible violation of Wikipedia's policy on edit warring. Thank you.--BoguSlav 22:32, 26 December 2014 (UTC)

December 2014
Your recent editing history at Cossack Hetmanate shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war. To resolve the content dispute, please do not revert or change the edits of others when you get reverted. Instead of reverting, please use the article's talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. The best practice at this stage is to discuss, not edit-war. See BRD for how this is done. If discussions reach an impasse, you can then post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection.

Being involved in an edit war can result in your being blocked from editing&mdash;especially if you violate the three-revert rule, which states that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Undoing another editor's work—whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert. Also keep in mind that while violating the three-revert rule often leads to a block, you can still be blocked for edit warring&mdash;even if you don't violate the three-revert rule&mdash;should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly. Iryna Harpy (talk) 22:37, 26 December 2014 (UTC)
 * User:Ушкуйник, you're back in a revert war again only three days after your last block. You're now risking a permanent block from Wikipedia. There may still be time for you to reply to the edit warring complaint  and promise to follow our policies in the future. Thank you, EdJohnston (talk) 02:49, 27 December 2014 (UTC)

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 1 week for Violation of the three-revert rule on Cossack Hetmanate, immediately after release of prior block. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions. If you think there are good reasons why you should be unblocked, you may appeal this block by adding the following text below this notice:. However, you should read the guide to appealing blocks first. slakr \ talk / 08:08, 27 December 2014 (UTC)
 * Dear slakr  talk, thank you for information, but I think, you should block for Edit-War also Mr. Faustian, see that: Gogol. Especially, I would like to pay your attention on this talk-page: Here I have shown five Encyclopeia's, including Encyclopedia of Ukraine, where is said, that Gogol was Russian writer, but Mr. Faustian has ignored all my sources and arguments.
 * See my arguments:
 * 1) Gogol was born in Russian Empire, he lived in Russian Empire, he died in Moscow and he was Russian citizen;
 * 2) He wrote all his works in Russian language and criticized Shevchenko for using Ukrainian language in literature;
 * 3) For all reliable English Encyclopaedia's Gogol is Russian writer, see: 1 - Britannica, 2 - Encyclopedia of Ukraine, 3, 4, 5. Ушкуйник (talk) 14:01, 26 December 2014 (UTC)
 * Mr. Faustian has ignored all of it. I would be also glad, if you can unblock me, because I have arguments against actual version of the page Cossack Hetmanate. Mr. BoguSlav has made falsification of source, which I can prove. Best regards, Ушкуйник (talk) 17:40, 27 December 2014 (UTC)
 * Insisting that you were right in the content dispute won't help you get unblocked. See WP:NOTTHEM. The question is whether you will agree to change your own behavior in the future. You don't get a free pass to violate WP:3RR just because you're sure you are right. EdJohnston (talk) 17:56, 27 December 2014 (UTC)
 * Dear EdJohnston, I agree not to take part in Edit-War in the future, but I really don't know how I can another way battle with such users like Mr. Faustian. They ignore any sources and any arguments. Is it possible to invite someone in our disputations on pages Hetmanate and Gogol, who have more experience and mean well? Ушкуйник (talk) 18:03, 27 December 2014 (UTC)
 * If Wikipedia still based itself on the 1911 version of the Encyclopaedia Britannica and similar dated sources (from whence all of your "Russian" ethnicity for Gogol is based), it would be featuring the Austro-Hungarian Empire and it's subject states (one of which, being Poland) would be split with the Russian Empire, and it would not be considered offensive to call Britain "England"; China would still have an Emperor; and we would have Dutch, English, German and French colonies around the world (now, quite astoundingly known as sovereign states with names not resembling the Celebes, etc.). The USA would still be a growing economic power, and the natural sciences would still be discussing "Continental drift" [EDIT] (oops, sorry, not even Continental drift was recognised as being a fully-fledged theory until 1912: how remiss of me!).


 * The fact that there is a plethora of far more contemporary studies of ethnicities, not simply the information passed onto the Anglophone world by the Russian Empire, seems to be a point you have a conflict with... and carry into your editing as WP:BATTLEGROUND behaviour. As much as you may wish to pass off anachronistic content as good coin, please stop ignoring the fact that scholarly research has yielded far more complex understandings of ethnicity outside of the All-Russian nation (which was a convenient philosophical/political theory for holding an empire together). --Iryna Harpy (talk) 01:04, 28 December 2014 (UTC) --Iryna Harpy (talk) 02:41, 28 December 2014 (UTC)
 * Iryna Harpy, I am not speaking here about Russian ethnicity, as you try to say. In your opinion even Encyclopedia of Ukraine is not enough reliable source, that Gogol was Russian writer. Maybe you have forgotten, but Dmytro Chyzhevsky wrote his article about Gogol from Ukrainian point of view and after World War II, but even he wrote about Gogol: Russian writer of Ukrainian origin. With your logic I think there is no any sense in discussion: you just don't able to admit, that your nationalism could be irrelevant in such cases as Gogol. Ушкуйник (talk) 01:49, 28 December 2014 (UTC)


 * "I really don't know how I can another way battle" - it doesn't sound like your planning to build WP:Consensus, or accept the fact that it does not go your way
 * "Faustian has ignored all my sources and arguments" - you have used WP:OR and cherrypicked, yet continue to assert the arguments after they have been refuted. The sources you use do not say what you pretend they say. This has not been a discussion. This has been a WP:POV-push.
 * "I would be also glad, if you can unblock me" - you were warned multiple times and were very familiar with the policies, but chose to ignore them on your POV mission. It does not sound to me that anything is going to change.--BoguSlav 01:55, 28 December 2014 (UTC)
 * BoguSlav, especially from you it is really fun to hear about WP:OR and cherrypicked. I have not found any information about "Little Russian State", which you tried to prove through Encyclopedia of Ukraine (I mean your passage: In Russian diplomatic correspondence it was called the Little Russian State (Малороссийское государство, Malorossiiskoe gosudarstvo); ). There is no such term about Hetmanate at all in the article, which you have cited, it is WP:OR. Your argumentation is based on premeditated falsehood. Ушкуйник (talk) 02:03, 28 December 2014 (UTC)
 * This is nonsense. You have CLEARLY not read the source. I am becoming increasingly convinced that you are Disrputive editor. You clearly have NOT read the source, because you would not have made your above claim if you did read it. You are not interested in building consensus and you refuse community input. I can no longer assume good faith with you because you can't, at the very least, read the sources you cite. This is not a sensible discussion, because it takes two to tango and you have not been participating. You have lost all credibility as an impartial editor. You ignore any sources going against you POV. This is not constructive, and frankly, it's a waste of my time. Do not accuse of me "premeditated falsehoods", when you don't read the sources.--BoguSlav 05:19, 29 December 2014 (UTC)

To return to the topic of Gogol, the lead in the Encyclopedia of Ukraine reads as "The most famous Russian writer of Ukrainian origin." Reading the information conveyed by that encyclopaedia, in the context of the full article, I actually find it awkwardly written. Read it carefully: their intention is clearly that he was the most famous author of Ukrainian ethnicity to write in the Russian language. The exclusive lingua franca of the Russian Empire was Russian therefore, if you wanted to make any form of living as a professional writer, it was essential to write in the Russian language or you'd have no audience and no publishing houses throughout the empire who would take your work on. I have no interest in speculating on what language he would have written in if that region of Ukraine had been under Austro-Hungarian occupation for generations, nor anecdotal information about arguing with Shevchenko over the Ukrainian language as this, too, has been disputed as to actually having taken place.

My issue with the content you are pushing is that your only contributions to articles has been based on somehow 'proving' that Ukrainians are Russians, and that historical and cultural figures were all Russian. Even your insistence on the use of the anachronism "Ruthenian" where it designates Ukrainian, arguing that it is used in the contemporary sources of the period is WP:POINTy by design as you fail to make any such distinctions between the official "Russian" language of various periods such as that of the "Muscovite Russian" which became the official/cultural/literary version of the "Russian language" only a couple of centuries ago. There was no one linear version of the "Russian language" from the middle ages running through to contemporary times. If you're such a stickler for the details, you'd make an attempt to distinguish between liturgical and vernacular languages instead of mimicking the depiction of "Russian" as "Old Russian" (actually Old East Slavic) and everything and everyone of note from that time (including Gregory Skovoroda who you added to the List of Russian philosophers, ad infinitum).

You are promoting fallacies by rewriting the most fundamental understandings already established in the articles you have focussed on. Your interpretations are WP:OR, and you deliberately twist truths with half-truths in order to create a WP:COATRACK for a Russophile reading of the history of the Eastern Slavs. Now you have the audacity to bewail the fact that the only way to deal with other editors is to edit war with them and continue to try to wear down your opponents by presenting the same spurious sources, and one-eyed readings of those sources, over and over. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 03:45, 28 December 2014 (UTC)
 * Iryna Harpy, you try to ignore everything with the exception of ethnicity. It is a typical nationalism. It doesn't matter for you, that for every Encyclopedia Gogol is a Russian writer, for you it is WP:OR par excellence, because you don't able to see anything except ethnicity. Your pathetic speech has nothing to do with facts: Shevchenko wrote his works in Ukrainian at the same time with Gogol. Ruthenian language is not equal with Ukrainian language, as you try to support. It is a simplification, but for you it is convenient, that's why you use it. Good luck. Ушкуйник (talk) 13:42, 28 December 2014 (UTC)

He tried to evade the block by posting as an IP: .Faustian (talk) 04:39, 29 December 2014 (UTC)
 * Well, I know of at least two IP addresses for him. I took the first one to be a AGF error: i.e., inadvertently forgetting to sign in - see location for that IP). However, he had previously also edited from 91.9.171.123 (see location for that IP). It may simply be that he has a dynamic IP address. The one you've pointed out is located in Moscow. It may be meatpuppetry, but it may just be a coincidence. We'd can always run a thorough check if any suspicious disruption continues. At the moment, I'm more predisposed towards a dynamic address and a fan of his trying to reinstate his edits. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 05:32, 29 December 2014 (UTC)
 * Faustian, here Iryna Harpy is right. I'm not from Moscow, actually, I live in Germany and in Ukraine. Best wishes, Ушкуйник (talk) 01:25, 30 December 2014 (UTC)

February 2015
This is your only warning; if you use Wikipedia for soapboxing, promotion or advertising again, as you did at Donetsk People's Republic, you may be blocked from editing without further notice. Iryna Harpy (talk) 22:13, 16 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Just to make it clear that I have no personal agenda here, your POV removals of reliably sourced content were not reverted by me, but by two independent editors. If you wish to discuss the content of the article, use the talk page. Rather than getting yourself into trouble, by this point in your editing experience you must be aware of the fact that this is the method by which to get consensus over content issues in articles dealing with controversial matters. Thank you for your attention. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 22:27, 16 February 2015 (UTC)


 * Dear Iryna Harpy, it wasn't edit-war at all. I just have made a contribution to make clear the sense of preamble. Ушкуйник (talk) 23:24, 16 February 2015 (UTC)
 * No, but I'm just giving you a heads up on this. The article (along with a huge number of high traffic articles on recent events) is being edited without discussion by POV-ers from both sides. As this, and the other articles go, the sheer amount of traffic is shifting the POV from edit to edit. I think it's important that the talk page should be used to its optimum in order to form consensus in order that regulars can confidently revert POV additions and removals, being able to point to the consensus on the talk page. Essentially, while you and I disagree on virtually everything, I still consider you to be a good faith editor. Better to hash it out intelligently on the talk page than risk good faith editors being blocked or banned while those who skim under the radar keep dragging from one direction to the other (and they'll end up taking hold of the reigns while higher calibre editors are left to stand by helpless). --Iryna Harpy (talk) 04:05, 17 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Ok, I agree with you. Thanks! Ушкуйник (talk) 11:31, 17 February 2015 (UTC)

May 2015
Hi! There is a special scientific research about Vernadsky Genealogy in corresponding article. I have found no proof at Russian geological museum site about Russian descend of Ganna Vernadsky. Could you to afford another proof of you position? --Geohem (talk) 13:54, 15 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Dear Geohem, I have checked some sources to prove the information about the origin of his mother. You are right, she is of Cossack origin. I apologize for this mistake in editing. Best regards, Ушкуйник (talk) 19:01, 15 May 2015 (UTC)

ArbCom elections are now open!
Hi, You appear to be eligible to vote in the current Arbitration Committee election. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate, you are welcome to review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. For the Election committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 17:01, 24 November 2015 (UTC)

Season's greetings!


Iryna Harpy (talk) is wishing you a Merry Christmas! This greeting (and season) promotes WikiLove and hopefully this note has made your day a little better. Spread the WikiLove by wishing another user a Merry Christmas, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past, a good friend, or just some random person. Happy New Year!

Spread the cheer by adding {{subst:Xmas6}} to their talk page with a friendly message.
 * Dear Iryna Harpy, thanks and Merry Christmas!!! :) Ушкуйник (talk) 14:50, 2 January 2016 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for January 8
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Gregory Skovoroda, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Vladimir Solovyov. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ* Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 09:29, 8 January 2016 (UTC)

Warned for edit warring at Ivan Kozhedub
Please see the result of the complaint at the edit-warring noticeboard. You are risking a block if you revert again at this article unless you first get a consensus on the talk page. I'm also alerting you (below) of the discretionary sanctions under WP:ARBEE. Editors arguing about someone's nationality is a familiar problem in Eastern Europe. That's one of the issues the ARBEE sanctions were created to deal with. EdJohnston (talk) 01:21, 22 March 2016 (UTC)

Nationality of people is covered by discretionary sanctions under WP:ARBEE
EdJohnston (talk) 01:24, 22 March 2016 (UTC)

May 2016
Please refrain from making unconstructive edits to Wikipedia, as you did at Vilnius. Your edits appear to be disruptive and have been or will be undone. Please ensure you are familiar with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines, and please do not continue to make edits that appear disruptive. Continual disruptive editing may result in loss of editing privileges. Thank you. – Sabbatino (talk) 19:34, 2 June 2016 (UTC)
 * If you are engaged in an article content dispute with another editor, please discuss the matter with the editor at their talk page, or the article's talk page, and seek consensus with them. Alternatively you can read Wikipedia's dispute resolution page, and ask for independent help at one of the relevant notice boards.
 * If you are engaged in any other form of dispute that is not covered on the dispute resolution page, please seek assistance at Wikipedia's Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents.

Hello! There is a DR/N request you may have interest in.
This message is being sent to let you know of a discussion at the Dispute resolution noticeboard regarding a content dispute discussion you may have participated in. Content disputes can hold up article development and make editing difficult for editors. You are not required to participate, but you are both invited and encouraged to help this dispute come to a resolution. Please join us to help form a consensus. Thank you!  • DP •  {huh?} 23:38, 24 August 2016 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for March 10
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Elena Berkova, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Ukrainian. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ* Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 10:53, 10 March 2017 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for March 17
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Nikita Dzhigurda, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Ukrainian. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ* Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 10:17, 17 March 2017 (UTC)

July 2017
The long-standing consensus with the names of Ukrainian localities is that most of them have no established English name, and in these case we use Ukrainian name, spelled according to WP:UKR. The known exceptions are Kiev, Odessa, and Chernobyl. This refers to historical as well as to contemporary usage (obviously if the name itself was not changes as e.g. Yelizavetgrad). I at some point started an rfc for Hurzug, and the page was named to Gurzuf. This makes the fourth exception. One can also ardue (though there was no rfc) that localities which are in Crimea and in the territories of Ukraine controlled by DPR and LPR separatists, even if they have been renamed by the Ukrainian gobvernment, should retain the old names. There was no RfC, but I am pretty sure if there is one, this conclusion would stand. However, you are challenging the general consensus, not want to use exceptions. Rather than edit-warring (I see you have already been blocked for edit-warring, and most likely you will be blocked again if you continue), if you want to change the consensus, you should start an RfC at one of the pages and advertise it broadly enough (at least in WikiProjects Russia and Ukraine) so that it gets enough attention.--Ymblanter (talk) 09:13, 30 July 2017 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for July 4
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Dmitry Bortniansky, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Glukhov ([//dispenser.info.tm/~dispenser/cgi-bin/dablinks.py/Dmitry_Bortniansky check to confirm] | [//dispenser.info.tm/~dispenser/cgi-bin/dab_solver.py/Dmitry_Bortniansky?client=notify fix with Dab solver]). Such links are usually incorrect, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of unrelated topics with similar titles. (Read the FAQ* Join us at the DPL WikiProject.)

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 14:01, 4 July 2019 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for August 4
An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Pyotr Wrangel, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Russian ([//dispenser.info.tm/~dispenser/cgi-bin/dablinks.py/Pyotr_Wrangel check to confirm] | [//dispenser.info.tm/~dispenser/cgi-bin/dab_solver.py/Pyotr_Wrangel?client=notify fix with Dab solver]).

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 09:30, 4 August 2019 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for August 25
An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Alexander Kovalevsky, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Russian ([//dispenser.info.tm/~dispenser/cgi-bin/dablinks.py/Alexander_Kovalevsky check to confirm] | [//dispenser.info.tm/~dispenser/cgi-bin/dab_solver.py/Alexander_Kovalevsky?client=notify fix with Dab solver]).

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 07:55, 25 August 2019 (UTC)

Reverts in Ukrainian topics
Now, when your opponent KHMELNYTSKYIA got topic banned from everything related to Ukraine, I must warn you that your behavior in the articles you both were involved was very far from ideal. Yes, in contrast to them, you tried to resolve the issues by going to talk pages, but your main means of dispute resolution still remains edit-warring. May I please remind you, first of all, of WP:3RR - any uninvolved administator can block you without prior warnings if you overstep three reverts in 24h. And, of course, arbitration enforcement is still there. Please do not edit-war, and if your opponent can not stop and continues edit-warring without going to the talk page, go to WP:3RRN, WP:ANI or present them for arbitration enforcement - but you would need to make a case, showing diffd, and, for arbitration enforcement, demonstrating that the problem could not have been resolved by other means.--Ymblanter (talk) 07:14, 1 October 2019 (UTC)

IP reported you at ANI
Hi! An IP editor reported you at ANI:. It appears they did not notify you. Their complaint is also a bit unclear. Eostrix (talk) 16:10, 16 January 2020 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for March 14
An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Ostrogozhsk, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Russian ([//dispenser.info.tm/~dispenser/cgi-bin/dablinks.py/Ostrogozhsk check to confirm] | [//dispenser.info.tm/~dispenser/cgi-bin/dab_solver.py/Ostrogozhsk?client=notify fix with Dab solver]).

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 13:41, 14 March 2020 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for March 21
An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Ostrogozhsk, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Olga Vasilyeva ([//dispenser.info.tm/~dispenser/cgi-bin/dablinks.py/Ostrogozhsk check to confirm] | [//dispenser.info.tm/~dispenser/cgi-bin/dab_solver.py/Ostrogozhsk?client=notify fix with Dab solver]).

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 12:34, 21 March 2020 (UTC)

Regarding edits
Hello Ушкуйник! I noticed you had some concerns about my edits. I think it is important that Wikipedia maintain a neutral point of view, without pushing any propaganda or un-necessary redactions/removals of content, no matter what that particular editor's viewpoint is. Which is why I proceeded to remove: I am all about maintaining a Neutral Point of View. I suggest we continue in that fashion, and if there are any discrepancies or inconsistencies, then we may point that out on the article's page and bring that up with the greater editor community. Let us continue to find proper citations and sources for all of our edits, and make those articles credible beyond belief! Kindest regards! § DDima 14:16, 8 May 2020 (UTC)
 * That link is hardly a reliable source, and the link in question merely has a reference to Yuriy Drohobych's name, while Google search records provide no real evidence that "Magister Georgius Drohobich de Russia" is a common variant of his name. It is no different than if I went to George Washington's Russian Wikipedia article and added "George Washington of the United States of America" to the top of the description. It is *unnecessary*.
 * Moving pages can be controversial, especially if the location/article's title can have many different transliteration methods. In the case of Slavic languages, that is a particularly sensitive topic. It is important to maintain Wikipedia's credibility and search-ability, and by having the most commonly used variant as the article's title - that achieves those concerns. For instance, the article on Ukraine's capital is Kiev instead of Kyiv, Odessa is used instead of Odesa, etc. Having looked over the search records and Google books data on Sylvester Kosiv and Mykola Markevych, I have *not come to the conclusion that the other variants that you moved them to were any more recognizable and common than the former article titles that I reverted them to. You can bring that up on the Requested Moves page, and the respective article titles if you think you have a more compelling case.
 * Most certainly, this edit exemplifies maintaining an article's NPOV. It is improper and highly biased to consider Ukrainian language variants of people's names as "Ukrainified." For one, that is not even a word (in the very least not commonly used by reliable/credible sources), and it implies that that particular language's variant is not native. In the case of Nikolay Kostomarov, he was a specialist of *both Russian and Ukrainian folklore, and his own mother was Ukrainian. I'm sure you would not appreciate if I would change every instance of the Russian language for Ukrainian place names to state "Russified," would you?

Élie Metchnikoff
Apparently this is an ongoing issue with this article. You cannot distort the facts and the statements that *credible* sources make to push a certain POV, which is why Wikipedia has official policies. I suggest you take a look at WP:RS, and also WP:3RR, as I have noticed many a times that you have been edit warring needlessly (over a period of hours, or months) over minute details that serve no greater benefit than to whitewash history. The source given explicitly states "Élie Metchnikoff, a Ukrainian Jew who was deputy..."

I have found, and can add many more sources that will back that up. If you wish to add that he is a Moldovan Jew, then by all means please find a *reliable* source and that can also go into the article. But until then, that edit will be reverted. If you will continue edit warring, then I will bring it up to the WP:ANI and have a third-party administrator take a look at the situations, as an un-biased observer of the article. § DDima 21:56, 30 June 2020 (UTC)
 * Dear DDima, I'm not trying to doubt the thesis that Élie Metchnikoff had Jewish roots in the area of Ukraine, that's why I have made a redirect to the article History of the Jews in Ukraine. But the fact is that he also had Moldavian roots. He belonged to Spatar nobility. The family name Mechnikov is a translation from Moldavian — Spataru means sword (mech). And it is quite easy to proof. In the book of Olga Metchnikoff Life of Elie Metchnikoff, 1845-1916 you can find the Chapter VI with the title: "Ancestors of the Metchnikoff family — The great Spatar — Leo Nevachovich". The first part of this Chapter is dedicated to the history of Moldavian Spatar nobility. Best regards, Ушкуйник (talk) 07:45, 1 July 2020 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for July 6
An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Franciscus Sylvius, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Dutch ([//dispenser.info.tm/~dispenser/cgi-bin/dablinks.py/Franciscus_Sylvius check to confirm] | [//dispenser.info.tm/~dispenser/cgi-bin/dab_solver.py/Franciscus_Sylvius?client=notify fix with Dab solver]).

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 06:26, 6 July 2020 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for July 19
An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Gustav Shpet, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Phenomenology ([//dispenser.info.tm/~dispenser/cgi-bin/dablinks.py/Gustav_Shpet check to confirm] | [//dispenser.info.tm/~dispenser/cgi-bin/dab_solver.py/Gustav_Shpet?client=notify fix with Dab solver]).

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 06:28, 19 July 2020 (UTC)

EDIT WAR in Vladimir Vernadsky
Please stop edit war in article Vladimir Vernadsky:, ,. In case you will continue to remove information from reliable sources, the incident will be reported on WP:ANI--Geohem (talk) 11:43, 3 September 2020 (UTC)

Russification of wikipedia articles
Please stop to continue the make russification of wikipedia articles. The examples: in article Vladimir Vernadsky:, ,, in article Andrey Razumovsky you put Glukhov instead of Hlukhiv: , ,,. You was already banned and have topic ban for the same activities in Russian wiki Бессрочная блокировка 14 сентября 2020. , as administrator of russian wikipedia who put topic ban, could you comment reminded above activities of --Geohem (talk) 13:50, 27 September 2020 (UTC)
 * Dear Geohem, as I said, I am making my contributions with respect to the Britannica. If you don't like it, you can justify your position on the talk-page. Secondly, the spelling Glukhov is a correct one and based on the 18th century sources and on the modern research literature about this time. The modern Ukrainian spelling can be used in relation to the events that are part of the history of independent Ukraine, but not in relation to the Russian Empire. Thirdly, all the conflicts in the Russian Wiki are settled and they have no relation to our conversation about Razumovsky. Best regards, Ушкуйник (talk) 14:00, 27 September 2020 (UTC)
 * Please provide any rule where instead of English names of the city: Kharkiv, Hlukhiv we should use another ones e.g. Glukhov --Geohem (talk) 14:28, 27 September 2020 (UTC)
 * Dear Geohem, I totally agree with you by the using of the modern spelling in articles on the modern history, but not on the history of the 18th and 19th centuries. See for example an article about Arthur Schopenhauer. No one use the spelling Gdańsk with respect to the history of Prussia and Silesia. Schopenhauer lived in Danzig, but not in Gdańsk. At the same time Gdańsk is a modern common English name of the city. Best regards, Ушкуйник (talk) 14:34, 27 September 2020 (UTC)
 * Dear Ушкуйник could you provide the date and source when cities name changed from "Glukhov" to Hlukhiv? --Geohem (talk) 14:56, 27 September 2020 (UTC)
 * Dear Geohem, it is a very typical situation. For example, the modern name of the city of Kharkov is Kharkiv, but at the time of the 19th century the city belonged to Russian Empire and was called only Kharkov, for that reason we have an article Kharkov Governorate, for example. All the names of cities and their spelling change over the course of history, it's just a fact. And it is not allowed to use modern-day spelling disrespectfully to the historical location and it's role in the history. It's just the state of affairs. Best regards, Ушкуйник (talk) 15:10, 27 September 2020 (UTC)
 * No you are wrong, we use "Kharkov Governorate", because of it is used in reliable sources. As well we don't use old names like Sebastopol instead of Sevastopol or Stambul instead of Istanbul? --Geohem (talk) 16:07, 27 September 2020 (UTC)
 * The name Glukhov is used in a whole number of English-speaking reliable sources with respect to the history of Russian Empire. Just open any book about the history of the Kharkov Governorate. Even in modern-day Ukraine the spelling Glukhov is present. See, for example: [1 Glukhov city, Ukraine travel guide]. Best regards, Ушкуйник (talk) 16:21, 27 September 2020 (UTC)
 * Could you provide some proofs of thesis "Glukhov is used in a whole number of English-speaking reliable sources with respect to the history of Russian Empire" in modern reliable sources? --Geohem (talk) 10:57, 28 September 2020 (UTC)
 * See, for example: [1], [2], [3] etc. Ушкуйник (talk) 14:54, 28 September 2020 (UTC) P.S. See also: Glukhovsky Uyezd. Best regards, Ушкуйник
 * I made the search and receive more results with Hlukhiv for the similiar historical period. So, Hlukhiv is acceptable to use for 18th century and not need to confuse readers with another name --Geohem (talk) 17:03, 28 September 2020 (UTC)
 * This analysis shows nothing as it does not take into account any chronological aspect. Anachronysms are currently present in the research literature, it's true, but they have no preference in the literature and they are far from the scientific standard. I have nothing against of using them in brackets, as has been done in several articles. After all, as soon as we have the opportunity to avoid anachronisms in the articles about the history, we should avoid them. Especially in cases when we have reliable sources for that. Ушкуйник (talk) 18:58, 28 September 2020 (UTC)

“At that time known as . . .”
See this G. B. Ngram.

April 2021
Please do not remove content or templates from pages on Wikipedia, as you did to Maxim Berezovsky, without giving a valid reason for the removal in the edit summary. Your content removal does not appear to be constructive and has been reverted. If you only meant to make a test edit, please use your sandbox for that. Thank you.  ---Wikaviani  (talk) (contribs)  21:46, 1 April 2021 (UTC)

May 2021
Please refrain from making test edits in Wikipedia pages, such as those you made to Artemy Vedel, even if you intend to fix them later. Your edits have been reverted. If you would like to experiment again, please use your sandbox. Thank you. Dl2000 (talk) 01:30, 22 May 2021 (UTC)

Please stop your disruptive editing. If you continue to blank out or remove portions of page content, templates, or other materials from Wikipedia without adequate explanation, as you did at Konstantin Kryzhitsky, you may be blocked from editing. Dl2000 (talk) 12:21, 29 May 2021 (UTC)

October 2021
Please stop falsification the sources in the article Artemy Vedel. In the source is described Golden Three Ukrainian composers of the 18th century, not Russian. In case you will continue to do it, your violation will be be reported to administrators. --Geohem (talk) 11:38, 13 October 2021 (UTC)

Your behaviour is reported
Please be informed that your behaviour is reported https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Incidents 188.95.211.239 (talk) 13:49, 2 February 2022 (UTC)

Artemy Vedel
Hi Ушкуйник, I notice that you're busy editing the Artemy Vedel article at present, which I have nominated for GAN. Please could you justify the way some of the edits you have made (adding references to the lead section, changing the links to the Ukrainian Wikipedia that I have found, and amending the names of individual people and places? I'm happy to concur with your changes if your explanations are logical, otherwise I can't see why many of them should not be reverted. Regards, Amitchell125 (talk) 21:27, 27 April 2022 (UTC)
 * Dear Amitchell125, many thanks for your message! It would be a pleasure for me to edit the text about Vedel together with you. First of all I have to explain why I am writing the name of the city of Kiev instead of Kyiv. The article is dedicated to a person who lived in the Russian Empire in the 18th century. For this reason we must use the names of towns that correspond to the administrative divisions of the 18th century. Exempli gratia: In the article about the same period composer Christian Benjamin Uber (1746–1812) it is written that he was born in Breslau, not in Wrocław. We know, that modern-day city is known as Wrocław in Poland, but we use the spelling of the concret historical period with respect to the administrative division of the 18th century. When you write that Vedel was born in Kyiv, Russian Empire, it sounds like an anachronism.
 * I would suggest writing as follows: "Vedel was born in Kiev, Russian Empire (now Kyiv, Ukraine)". In this formulation we indicate that the city belongs to Ukraine and even use the modern pronunciation, but the administrative division that was present in Vedel's lifetime is also correctly transmitted. So if you don't mind, I would suggest to mention the locations in the article with a view to this principle. Best regards, Ушкуйник (talk) 10:56, 29 April 2022 (UTC)
 * Thanks for your reply, Ушкуйник, and I appreciate your work on the article, but I have to disagree with what you have said about the spellings of place names. Please see the article's talk page for the link to a discussion about Kyiv by other editors. The article has been nominated as a GAN, and I would prefer to wait until it has been reviewed before taking you up on your generous offer of improving the article still further with me. Regards, Amitchell125 (talk) 11:03, 29 April 2022 (UTC)
 * Dear Amitchell125, there is no problem! Of course I can wait in view of the current nomination of the article and not make any corrections. I have only one question, could you possibly briefly explain why you disagree with the proposed principle? It has been discussed several times (the participant Ymblanter can confirm it) and traditionally the spelling of cities is used with reference to the historical era. Best regards, Ушкуйник (talk) 11:14, 29 April 2022 (UTC)
 * Looking at WP:KYIV... I'll think about how we could come to a compromise that works, and come back to you. Amitchell125 (talk) 11:37, 29 April 2022 (UTC)

License tagging for File:Aristoteleva Philosophia.jpg
Thanks for uploading File:Aristoteleva Philosophia.jpg. You don't seem to have indicated the license status of the image. Wikipedia uses a set of image copyright tags to indicate this information.

To add a tag to the image, select the appropriate tag from this list, click on this link, then click "Edit this page" and add the tag to the image's description. If there doesn't seem to be a suitable tag, the image is probably not appropriate for use on Wikipedia. For help in choosing the correct tag, or for any other questions, leave a message on Media copyright questions. Thank you for your cooperation. --ImageTaggingBot (talk) 13:30, 11 October 2022 (UTC)

ArbCom 2022 Elections voter message
 Hello! Voting in the 2022 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2022 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 01:26, 29 November 2022 (UTC)

Discretionary sanctions alert
You have recently made edits related to Eastern Europe or the Balkans. This is a standard message to inform you that Eastern Europe or the Balkans is a designated contentious topic. This message does not imply that there are any issues with your editing. For more information about the contentious topics system, please see Contentious topics. —Michael Z. 16:35, 17 January 2023 (UTC)

ArbCom 2023 Elections voter message
 Hello! Voting in the 2023 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2023 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:43, 28 November 2023 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for May 12
An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Maxim Berezovsky, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Glukhov.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 17:56, 12 May 2024 (UTC)