User talk:Alex Bakharev/Archive22

St. Volodymyr.jpg
Hey, man. I took the picture from Ukrainian wiki page of Volodymir. It is an icon from one of the cathedrals in Novgorod which makes it public domain by definition. How do I release anything to public domain and what's a wikicorner? User:Ivan2007 (talk)

NewArtBot
Hi, Alex! Since the bot goes down pretty much every time you go on vacation and, as it is becoming ever more popular, you are starting to get more and more panicky messages, is it possible for someone else to run the bot in your absence? It is, obviously, too late to worry this time, but perhaps it can be arranged for your future leaves? I'd be more than willing to take the responsibility for running the bot next time, except I have no idea what it is that I'll need to be doing :), so it may not be technically possible. In any case, let me know when you come back.  Hope you are having a great time wherever it is you are now!  Best,—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); 15:29, 1 August 2008 (UTC)

Regarding this, is it possible to write full paths instead of internal Wikipedia links in the logs (or not to link them at all) to avoid cluttering Special:WhatLinksHere? Then interested people will find relevant feeds much more easily. Colchicum (talk) 20:49, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

Hello - Thanks for your new article bot! Could you take a look at the User:AlexNewArtBot/Statistics to make sure I added the rules for stubs and cats correctly. Also, I added a mini-navbar to User:AlexNewArtBot/StatisticsSearchResult - can I add that to the rules and log pages as well, or will the bot overwrite them? Regards&mdash;G716  &lt;T·C&gt; 12:40, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

User:24.79.215.70
Hi,

I noticed you blocked User:24.79.215.70 that IP 3 times so far. Could you please consider blocking it againg, for some longer period. If you just look at his talk page, you will some only warnrings about vandalism. Since this user is interested only in Croatia and Serbia, and IP is not from neither of those countries, it is propably permanent IP, used for vandalism only.

Regards, Ante Perkovic (talk) 15:39, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

Reminder about Kiev Metro
You are receiving this message because you are listed as the protecting admin for Kiev Metro. The page has been semiprotected for longer than 2 months without an expiry date set. Because Wikipedia relies on contributers to make the encyclopedia, I'm asking you to review your decision and either I hope that you will do one of the two in order to reduce the backlog of pages that have been semiprotected for very long period of time. If there are other pages you have also protected, I will try not to give more reminder, but I hope that you will double check your protection log to pick up and pages you might have forgotten. Thank you. -Royalguard11 (T) 20:01, 6 August 2008 (UTC) Why am I receiving this message?
 * Unprotect the page if protection is no longer needed, or
 * set a reasonable expiry date for the protection instead of leaving it on forever

Abkhazian SSR
Участники user:Kintetsubuffalo и user:Kuban kazak опять проталкивают идею что ССР Абхазия была полноценной республикой Советского Союза (в шаблонах с флагами и гербами республик СССР). Наверное их оригинальные исследования исходят из-за дописки "ССР" у этой республики ССР Грузии. Прошу помочь мне удалить ложную информацию и как-то уладить конфликт. --Pianist 01:41, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

Список статей (шаблонов):
 * Coats of arms of the Soviet Republics‎
 * Template:Coat of arms of the Soviet Republics‎
 * Coat of arms of the Abkhazian SSR‎
 * Template:Republics of the Soviet Union

Hello!
Hello! Are you back from your vacation yet? You have a pretty big amount of feedback about your bot. J I P | Talk 05:01, 10 August 2008 (UTC)


 * Yes please. I need my new article fix! :) Rebecca (talk) 10:27, 10 August 2008 (UTC)

Pianist ru
See Special:Contributions/Pianist_ru, he seems to be edit warring with others, doesn't use talk pages much, responds to others in Russian though this is the English wiki, etc. I get complaints about him. What's your take on this situation. — Rlevse  •  Talk  • 11:47, 10 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Yes, his command of English does not seem to be very strong and he is very stubborn, etc. In short pianist.ru is not the most pleasant collaborator on en wiki. Still regarding inclusion of Abkhazian SSR into various Soviet Union-related templates he is right. Despite its name Abkhazian SSR was not a full member of the Soviet Union. It was the only territory having a special status of a contractual republic of the Transcaucasian Soviet Federative Socialist Republic that seems to be closer to the status of an Autonomous Socialist Republic like e.g. Tatar Autonomous Soviet Socialist Republic than to a full Union member even short lived like e.g. Karelo-Finnish Soviet Socialist Republic. Alex Bakharev (talk) 12:28, 10 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Well, he certainly needs to be less stubborn and either needs to communicate in English or move along to the Russian wiki. — Rlevse  •  Talk  • 13:04, 10 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Hi Alex, sorry to take so long to get back to you. I don't have sources, but he is absolutely a problem even if he is correct, he rides roughshod over other editors, destroys wording of articles, even naming conventions of those articles. He seriously needs to be watched closely, up to blocking. Chris (クリス • フィッチ) (talk) 23:29, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

ossetia intro
except one single line, and the added reference line stating russian demands, all the remaining were written already..what you reverted to also has the same lines..thus making you adopt poorly written lines..i have added headers thats all..see discussion on article lead length/ cutting down the same..Cityvalyu (talk) 00:34, 11 August 2008 (UTC)
 * As a matter of fact I have problems with this one line: Georgia invaded the breakaway republic of South ossetia forcing half the population to flee into russia.Russia responded by sending peacekeeping forces. It is bad English and the narrative is not accurate and biased. The line is not here at present so I would not beat the dead horse Alex Bakharev (talk) 01:43, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

Kazakhstan
Hi, I'm sorry to bother you again. I don't know if you programmed your bot to do Portal:Kazakhstan/New article announcements, but its not working. Can you fix it? Thanks.--BoguslavM 21:58, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

Human rights in the Soviet Union
Hi, can you help with this article? I have been trying to make the article more neutral and factual, but user Biophys keeps on reverting to the version he likes. Here is a comparison of his edits and mine. He reverts all of my edits (well now all except one) including the tags and sourced information. The user has no objectivity when it comes to the topic and is also unable to discuss the issues in detail. The particular issues are listed here. Can you tell him to be neutral and stop reverting? -YMB29 (talk) 18:20, 12 August 2008 (UTC)
 * I responded here.Biophys (talk) 18:36, 12 August 2008 (UTC). Alex, in case you want to fix anything in this article yourself, please do. Biophys (talk) 19:03, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

Why is Biophys allowed to constantly revert without discussing? He reverted just before you protected the article. Did he tell you to protect the article (just after reverting)? So now his biased version is allowed to stand, like the last time you protected it. I have giving up trying to discuss anything with him since he simply ignores the discussion and begins the reverts again. I have many times wrote out everything I don't agree with and my arguments. Biophys would give a half hearted reply only to some of these, I would reply, then he would simply stop responding and revert my every edit. After a while he would again ask me to write what I don't agree with... And continue to do the same thing. I am not going to play his little game.

As I said before, he is not capable of following the discussion and being objective. You could see that in his edits and on talk pages.

Just simply compare my version and his.

For example:
 * He presents the Holodomor as genocide that is denied only by some silly historians who still think it was not intentional.
 * He also uses the Guinness Book of Records as an authoritative source on the number killed during communism in the USSR (he sources a book that cites a Russian newspaper that cites the 1989 Russian version of the Guinness book, which in turn simply uses Solzhenitsyn's guess).
 * Then he suggests that people in the USSR did not practice religion and that religion was not tolerated.
 * Furthermore, Biophys writes about quotes and policies from the Red Terror as though they were the norm for the entire period of Soviet history, deleting my edits that clarify the time period.
 * In addition he removes, , and POV tags.


 * Also he tries to get me banned by accusing me of incivility (he actually uses your warning from two years ago as evidence) and of being a sock.

Such editing and reverting of more neutral edits made by others does not belong on Wikipedia. -YMB29 (talk) 16:54, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

I am changing it back since Biophys failed again to show up on the talk page. -YMB29 (talk) 19:11, 3 October 2008 (UTC)
 * As soon as I changed it, he reverted again without discussing. Can you give him a warning? -YMB29 (talk) 19:46, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

Want to take part in it?
Hello, I recived your name after asking about Russian editors.

I hope you know about this list. If you can, please start helping in making it shorter (no - don't delete topics from the list. I mean creat articles. You can also make it bigger by adding topics).

Have a good day! Kostan1 (talk) 16:40, 13 August 2008 (UTC)


 * I would rather make it longer. My own list of the articles needed to be created is much longer Alex Bakharev (talk) 00:40, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

Feel like protectinng another article?
Please protect the Igor Sikorsky article so only esteblished registered users could edit it.

For a long time I'm interested in helicopters, and read alot about Sikorsky. Today I entered to the article about him and saw weird information. Not only that, the sources clamed something else. Someone there constantly enters information about his ethnicity which is not true. This person have done it from two IP's:,. Maybe he used more I don't know I only now went thru the history there to compare versions. It's some weird Ukrainian or Polish person hating Russian's. For example, after a visit on the talk page I understood that long time ago they agreed he's a Russian American, but this person deleted at first Russian American and wrote Ukrainian American. Now the ethnicity. Sikorsky's father, a known professor of Psychology, was half Russian half Polish and was a Russian nationalist. This user write's Ukrainian instead of Russian. If that wouln't be so sad that would be funny. Please do something about it. Kostan1 (talk) 11:32, 14 August 2008 (UTC)
 * It would be nice to protect it this way for a few years but that is fine to. Thank you! Kostan1 (talk) 11:50, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

Picture licensing
Could you please take a look at ? At least RIA Novosti explicitely disallows this: "Запрещается любое использование фото, графических, информационно-графических, видео, аудио и иных размещенных на сайтах материалов, принадлежащих Агентству и иным лицам."

An unrelated issue: how about this? Colchicum (talk) 16:35, 14 August 2008 (UTC)


 * I guess PGlukhov already received quite a stern warning (User_talk:Pglukhov). I hope he will be more copyright conscious in the future so no administrative actions would be needed.


 * Regarding the logs of the bot I am not sure. I see the advantage of removing the wikilinking so not to pollute the whatlinkshere data. On the other hand I have a script installed that shows tops of the wikipages when I hover the mouse pointer over the wikilinks. It is quite convenient to just move the mouse and see if the page is relevant or not. If there will be external style links I would need to click on the link and wait until it opens and if no linking whatsoever I would have to copypaste the name of an article into the searchbox. It is much less convenient. On the third hand (so to speak) it seems like nowadays you are doing much more of the bot work than me so if changes in the logs would not affect your performance I would manage. Let me think for a couple more days Alex Bakharev (talk) 01:49, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

Question
Hello. As a member of the WikiProject Olympics can I create a new job for your bot? Point is that many new articles about Olympic sportspeople appear now and we aren't able to catch all of them manually. I think the only parameters should be "Olympic" and "Olympiad", that should be sufficient. Can I go forward? Thank you. - Darwinek (talk) 11:07, 16 August 2008 (UTC)
 * I have started the feed, lets see how it would work Alex Bakharev (talk) 07:40, 17 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Thank you very much. :) I think if good set, this feed could be actually very much accurate. I will notify the WikiProject Olympics. - Darwinek (talk) 16:59, 17 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Guys, don't use the word "Olympiad". It has little to do with the Olympics: Colchicum (talk) 17:03, 17 August 2008 (UTC)
 * I see. I just saw here several articles (badly written) about the Olympic sportspeople which used only the "Olympiad" word. But you are right it would create many false positives. - Darwinek (talk) 17:13, 17 August 2008 (UTC)

Sorry to bug you again
I'm now learning the rules on Wikipedia, and I read this. According to this page, articles constantly vandalised can be semi-protected forever.

I would like to ask you to do it to the next articles, I also explaine why.


 * Russians - Some obsessed person constantly changes, at least two times a month, the numbers of Russians in every country to false figures on purpouse. Think you have noticed it.
 * Igor Sikorsky - You protected this article, thank you, but from the history page this person changing detales about his origin didn't to it one time just for fun, he returns after a while.

I belive that will forever close the case of those pages being obssesively vandaled. Kostan1 (talk) 21:28, 17 August 2008 (UTC)


 * I have semiprotected Russians do not know what else can be done. Sikorsky was born in Kiev and has Polish last name. It makes it almost certain that somebody would change his ethnicity to either Ukrainian or Polish. Alex Bakharev (talk) 01:17, 18 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Yes but for example his father was half Russian half Polish. When someone changes Russian to Ukrainian in an obsessive way that is clear vandalism, thats why I ask for an eternal semi-protection here. Kostan1 (talk) 12:03, 18 August 2008 (UTC)


 * Alex, as you can see, this user makes grammatic errors in almost every English word. He is not familiar with the subject, just like his colleague YMB. I spent a lot of time talking with YMB and them, but without any visible result. Sorry. This should stop. I can try to improve this article, but their intervention is not helpful.Biophys (talk) 02:04, 23 August 2008 (UTC)


 * Many wikipedians have imperfect English (well, including myself). If their edits are in good faith then they can contribute productively (though some native speaker has to cleanup their writings). Alex Bakharev (talk) 04:40, 23 August 2008 (UTC)


 * The problem is not really English. I am working towards a compromise with edits like that and reply at talk page(you are welcome check my other edits), but YMB simply reverts everything. Seriously, this YMB should be blocked (look also at his talk page).Biophys (talk) 05:43, 23 August 2008 (UTC)
 * You work towards a compromise? I started a discussion on the talk page, unlike you YMB uses it. You revert war, delete sourced material, use weasel words, and after that you say we "don't know the subject" and you "work towards a compromise"? It's enough to enter the history of the article and the talk page to see who wants a compromise, and who not. YMB references what he says. He to doesn't agree with many things in the article, but unlike you he is mature enough to use the talk page for it, and he is mature enough to respect a concensus. And that's all after I entered every claim you wanted to enter the article! You were given respect - give respect. Everyone can see what's going on by entering the talk page and the history. The funny thing is, the concensus version really was achieved. Biophys has nothing to add, he just removes what the other user said, and that's the only problem. Kostan1 (talk) 11:36, 23 August 2008 (UTC)


 * Sure, I worked towards the compromise, please see my evidence (links) provided above. it is you who do not work towards a compromise. Remember, I understand exactly what you and others are doing and why. Do you think I care so much about human rights in the Soviet Union? If this continue, I am going to simply switch to other topics, such as Russian-Georgian war. So far I only commented at talk page...Biophys (talk) 13:28, 23 August 2008 (UTC)
 * You try to thread? Hhh funny. And why did i tell you that? Because you simply ignored the talk page, you entered controversial edits, while the other user used the talk page. So I explained you or do it in a civil way, or don't do it at all. I entered every claim you wanted to enter, use the talk page. Kostan1 (talk) 14:12, 23 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Kostan1, no, I did not try to "thread" as you said. You suggested that I should "use the door" (see your edit summary in my last diff above). Well, I am ready to take your offer and switch to other subjects. Do not you see that I am ready to cooperate?Biophys (talk) 14:56, 23 August 2008 (UTC)
 * That wasn't said seriously. I wont insist, if you want, leave, but I think it would be nicer that you write all the edits you want to do on the discussion page, without entering to the text, or say what you don't like there. You know all you wanted to enter entered. The other user for the concensus and the discussion stoped removing what you added, and used the talk page to talk about what he want's do to. Do the same, you will be surprised how fine it works. If you'll enter the other users talk page, I don't know if you know Russian but i spoke to him much rudely then to you to explaine we need a compromise, it's nothing personal. Kostan1 (talk) 15:42, 23 August 2008 (UTC)
 * "That wasn't said seriously". No man, you are deadly serious as clear from your actions. The only thing you are doing are reverts of my edits in article Human rights in the Soviet Union. Fine, I will pay more attention to other subjects.Biophys (talk) 01:36, 24 August 2008 (UTC)
 * I used your version as the base version, I entered all information you wanted. The reason I revert you know is because you simply delete what another user added, and that is rude. Use the talk page to talk about what you don't like, you rudely revert without explanations. Kostan1 (talk) 11:17, 24 August 2008 (UTC)
 * In fact, your reverted this article to my own older version, without adding anything new on your part. I worked toward a compromise, but you reverted my compromise version.Biophys (talk) 16:13, 24 August 2008 (UTC)
 * How do you improve the article when you delete referenced material by the other user? How is that working towards a compromise? If i revert to simply "your previous version", how is it possible that in the version I there is also the material added by the other user, you try to delete? I guess Wikipedia is broken. Kostan1 (talk) 21:53, 24 August 2008 (UTC)

Biophys, I think it is wrong. You have wealth of information on the Human Rights in USSR topic and your editing helps. On the other hand it is contentious topic with many possible valid points of view. So please engage in the article talk page discussions rather than edit war. It is easier to revert than to discuss but in the long run finding compromises and discussions work better Alex Bakharev (talk) 10:51, 24 August 2008 (UTC)
 * I'm telling you, just look at the talk page of the article and at the history page. I entered every thing he wanted to add. He just ignores discussion right now. He deleted a referenced paragraph by another user saying it is "POV". Kostan1 (talk) 11:20, 24 August 2008 (UTC)
 * By the way, the other user there even though he doesn't like many things in the article, and even thought Biophys's version was chosen as the one we worked with, even though all that he respected it and accepted compromise and concensus. I would except Biophys to be mature like him. Kostan1 (talk) 11:24, 24 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Alex, I certainly agree with you. Moreover, that is exactly what I did: "engage in the article talk page" (see the diff above), and "finding compromises" (see another diff, and I can easily provide more). Unfortunately all my edits were blindly reverted (see another diff). This made any further productive work with this article impossible. Edit warring is not the way to create good articles and improve their content. Biophys (talk) 16:13, 24 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Wait! You want to tell me you haven't deleted referenced paragraphs added by the other user? You want to tell me you didn't use the excuse "i don't have time right now to explaine"? You want to tell me you didn't ignore the points I summarizeed for you the other user wrote to you? That's not even funny anymore. Kostan1 (talk) 21:53, 24 August 2008 (UTC)

Biophys is the most frustrating user I have seen on Wikipedia. He does not know what objectivity means, clings to questionable sources and ignores those that are more credible, avoids discussions, and reverts entire edits if he does not like one thing. We both tried to explain to him numerous times what exactly to discuss and settle, but he just does not want to continue the discussion. -YMB29 (talk) 18:45, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

RDX
Are such tangentially relevant remarks helpful? Colchicum (talk) 20:23, 20 August 2008 (UTC)
 * I mean I am not good in communicating with hot-tempered people, so could you please try to persuade her to move this stuff to RDX? Colchicum (talk) 20:31, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

Moved to the article talk page Alex Bakharev (talk) 00:45, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

Moscow Bombings edit
Thanks for your work. It is nice to know that not everyone is influenced by the views of Mr Berezovsky and his colleagues. Hope my new edits to the motives and explosives section are to your liking. I think more note of the "terrorist" angle should be placed near the top of the article - someone glancing at it would be left with the impression that the bombings were most likely the result of Russian actions, rather than this being a possible, unproven, cause. What say you. Maria- x - —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mariya Oktyabrskaya (talk • contribs) 09:36, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

Noticeboard
Hi Alex. Do you have any idea what happened to Azerbaijan noticeboard? All the recent announcements are displayed as "la by User", while when I tried to edit the text it seems to be Ok. I think the problem might be related to the wiki software, which does not recognize la template. What do you think? Thanks. Regards, Grandmaster (talk) 06:04, 22 August 2008 (UTC)
 * It looks like Wikimedia software does not work correctly if the number of templates is above some value. It appears that a bot created a lot of Azery geostubs recently and as the result my bot results become two long for the WMF. I have manually archieved most of the bot search results and the problem seems to disappear Alex Bakharev (talk) 07:28, 22 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Thanks, problem fixed. Grandmaster (talk) 05:32, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

A favour to ask
Dear Alex,

I am preparing to begin a request for adminship. Another admin has agreed to nominate me, but I believe having co-nominator(s) would be better for me at this point. I was wondering if you can help me in this endeavor. Thanks for your help! Arbiteroftruth (talk) 07:54, 22 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Usually I feel comfortable to nominate somebody for RFA if only if I have more common Wikipedia work than we had yet. I guess this is because we mostly work on different projects. I am sure there are plenty of people who know you quite well and will be happy to nominate you. If there are reasons it should be me who nominates you then please share them (maybe use Email if there are something private there) Alex Bakharev (talk) 10:35, 24 August 2008 (UTC)

Signpost updated for July 28, August 9, 11 and 18, 2008.
Sorry I haven't been sending this over the past few weeks. Ralbot (talk) 05:27, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

You are receiving this message because you have signed up for the Signpost spamlist. If you wish to stop receiving these messages, simply remove your name from the list. Ralbot (talk) 05:27, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

Editor requesting unblock might be a sock
Hello Alex. User talk:Dogdart is requesting unblock. His account was created today, and he is caught in the autoblock of User:Newcrewforu. This might be too simple, but can he be indef blocked as a sock of Newcrewforu? I was going to decline his unblock, but realize that I'm out of my depth. Maybe you want to discuss the matter with him? Just an idea, EdJohnston (talk) 05:49, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

I have cleaned the autoblock. Lets assume WP:AGF Alex Bakharev (talk) 06:01, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

WP:OWN
First let me say, I have tried to generalise this comment, rather than pointing the finger at individuals. I'm having a bit of trouble with an editor, who, in my personal opinion, seems to be setting himself up as the arbiter and editor-in-chief of a page. The well sourced material I provide is dismissed as 'absurd', and only grudgingly accepted after a battle, and even then is only permitted by the other editor in a subordinate position, sometimes with additional unsourced qualifying remarks from that editor. how should I best proceed? I am inclined to just edit BIG, but I know that will result in an edit war Any help or advice would be appreciated Maria - x - Mariya Oktyabrskaya (talk) 06:44, 24 August 2008 (UTC)


 * Well if we have a contentious article there the material is a result of some compromise then some sort of a reluctance to have changes (especially already discussed and rejected) in the text. There is such thing as WP:UNDUE - text that gives an undue weight to a marginal theory might be rejected even if properly sourced. I would start from discussions on the talk page of the article. You may want to increase the number of participants by filing an article WP:RFC. If the problem affects many articles I would start a User WP:RFC or other dispute resolution measures. Alex Bakharev (talk) 10:29, 24 August 2008 (UTC)


 * Wonderful. That's just what I needed to know. A WP:RFC seems like a great place to start. The WP:UNDUE sounds like an idea I will be moving with, as well. The Article I am thinking about seems to treat one theory from a few sources with a particularly high regard (despite other sources critising the unbalanced nature of the sources), and seems to treat all other sources and theories as very minor, and to be included, grudgingly, only for completeness, and even then with unsourced qualifiers added. Mariyx - x - Mariya Oktyabrskaya (talk) 14:33, 24 August 2008 (UTC)

Restructuring of Russian Apartment Bombings page
We are currently discussing this. Perhaps you would like to join us, as you have suggested an interest before. Mariya - x - Mariya Oktyabrskaya (talk) 19:14, 24 August 2008 (UTC)

UPA article
I would like to provide some citation: Because your WP:V and your WP:NOR are currently not polluting the article, such efforts are not necessary. I guess you have been caught being dishonest too often for that .Faustian (talk) 14:29, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

If you choose to be disruptive you will be reverted by the community of editors 12:39, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

Actually your disruptions have been reverted by many editors, I have just been the most active one. If you choose to resume being disruptive the reaction will be the same. Faustian (talk) 16:04, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

So – please advice – does such edit  can be nominated as disruptions? I replace existed text with exact citation and remove unreferenced claims in the lead. Per WP:NPOV - WP:UNDEU I list both POV vision of scholars and provide names and date of works Jo0doe (talk) 08:25, 27 August 2008 (UTC)


 * He added a dubious tag to a figure taken from a RS (Magocsi) (see comments about his work, removed info the same month as it was tagged for a source, removed other info that was sourced and was not controversial (which fought a guerrilla war during the Second World War and in the decade afterwards . OUN declared its primary purpose was to protect the interests of the Ukrainian population, starting out as a resistance group that grew into a guerrilla army. ), and repeated info from another section (German oppressors and supplied by them with arms and ammunitions from the beginning of the 1944.). While doing so he also added language that is awkward and more difficult to read.  It is unfortunate that Jo0doe has chosen to resume his disruptive edits and low-level edit-warring.Faustian (talk) 13:36, 27 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Per WP:Honest I add tag to construction Estimates of armed personnel at various times ranged from 15,000 - 100,000 see here Jo0doe (talk) 16:09, 27 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Only Magocsi and OUN propaganda claim - see first chapter ofWP:Fringe is Ukrainian) Українська Повстанська Армія - Історія нескорених - Львів, 2007 not RS and not NPOV per WP. I remove OR per listed issues



So here clear Breaching WP:NPOV - WP:UNDUE Jo0doe (talk) 15:57, 27 August 2008 (UTC)


 * Magosci is not a fringe theory. His book is published by University of Toronto Press and he is on staff at U of T after having studied at Harvard.  He meets all criteria for RS.  Tagging info referenced from his book as "dubious" is wrong and will be reverted.  There is nothiong dishonest about the infobox summarizing that estimates of UPA strnegth vary from 15,000-100,00 because various RS give estimates within that range.  The info removed is not controversial - it sttates that UPA grew into a guerilla army.  Jo0doe  is just being disruptive as usually, unfortunately.Faustian (talk) 18:10, 27 August 2008 (UTC)


 * I never mentioned what Magoci opinions is fringe theory (while many scholars did). I concerned to specific figure in his 1996 work (while he have 2007 work). If carefully read scholar comment on Magocsi's books – “rather popular character of this publication, addressing not so much an academic readership as a broad public” and for specific time period “Obviously with Magocsi this historical fact is a "blank spot," too” – so It’s not good idea to give such emphasis to “blank spot” in science article. And, once again, does anyone else listed this figure? See first chapter of WP:Fringe for this issue. While sentence is clear mislead – as far as you can read at Academy of Sciences of Ukraine work what in spring 1946 UPA at Ukraine numbered 300 person While I would be great to see RS for tagged sentence “which fought a guerrilla war during the Second World War and in the decade afterwards”. Thanks to WP we know what Second World War in Europe started September, 1 1939 and ends May 8(9 Moscow time) 1945. So here is clear hoax in the lead  - because UPA/OUN(B) not exist before March 20 1943 Order of it formation, and was dismissed (more formally because it actually does not exist as military formation) September 1949. I hope it’s easy to assess what “decade afterwards” (1945) gives 1955.

Here I would like to point the attention of administrator what user:Faustian resume his disruptive edits and low-level edit-warring at UPA article and engaged in personal attack and stonewalling – :

I hope his “Yes” does not referred to Latin phrase. quod liced Jovi non liced bovi?Jo0doe (talk) 16:15, 27 August 2008 (UTC) Yes, mentioning the biography of every source is unwarranted. …If you continue to try to clutter the article with irrelevant information, or awkward English, you will continue to be reverted by me or by someone else.Faustian (talk) 17:12, 27 August 2008 (UTC) Insulting me as OR so your claims are just Original Research as usual.Faustian (talk) 17:14, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

Here I would like to point the attention of administrator what user:Faustian resume his disruptive edits and low-level edit-warring – as it happened over last half year. I hope, dear administrator, you’ll be able to advice me a solution regarding this specific issue in favor of WP:reliability WP:NPOV and to protect WP from WP:Fringe – namely

postwar Ukrainian emigration began to redefine its politics. It downplayed as much as possible the cooperation between the Ukrainian nationalist parties and the Germans and emphasized instead how Ukrainian nationalists fought both the Germans and the Soviets and how the Ukrainian nation suffered enormously at the hands of both. Lebed's group published document collections that doctored historical texts to eliminate pro-German and antisemitic statements.[33] Lebed left his papers to the Harvard Ukrainian Research Institute.

Thank you for your advice in advanceJo0doe (talk) 07:42, 28 August 2008 (UTC)


 * Your disruptive edits have been reverted by multiple people, including an obvious non-Ukrainian nationalist such as kuban kazak.Faustian (talk) 14:13, 28 August 2008 (UTC)
 * WP:Honest - see article history page kuban kazak rv only once and a long time ago - while limited group of editors with collaborative effort trace my edits - I even don't spoke about numerous IP edits Jo0doe (talk) 15:39, 28 August 2008 (UTC)


 * "Collaborative effort?" It's just you vs. everyone else.Faustian (talk) 15:48, 28 August 2008 (UTC)
 * WP:Honest - see Statistics

Edit statistics of UPA from January 26, 2008 Faustian – 279 edits John0Doe – 191 edits Bobbanie – 111 edits Bandurist – 47 edits Kuban Kazak 34 edits

Rv of John0Doe edits (started immediately slow edit warring since beginning of February 2008) February: Faustian – more then 10 rv (allegedly “OR” story) March - “mischief story” – rv: 2 RV  by IP 90.2.27.862; 2 Rv by Bobbanie 1 Rv by Ruirik – rest – more then 20 – Faustian April: 2 IP rv - 90.35.25.205 83.199.45.7 5 Bandurist RV 2 Bobbanie (per no massive changes) 5 by Faustian May : 11 Rv by Bandurist 3 Rv by Faustian 2 IP rv 90.2.92.101 81.249.80.149 1 Kuban Kazak June: 2 by Faustian 2 by IP 2 by Bandirist 1 by Bobbanie Article blocked July – no edits by John0Doe August: 5 Rv by Faustian 1 rv by Bandurist
 * A conclusion:posed “group of editor”: limited to Faustian IP anonims, and 2 Editor which asked by him for such rv (see their talk page) – so I assume such as cooperative personal attack (as for instance user:Bandurist edits generally intended for revert (rv/edits ratio) rather something else. Thank you for your assistance in preventing such cooperative personal attack at my edits at this and rest article which visited by “members of cooperative” only for rv my edits .Jo0doe (talk) 17:44, 28 August 2008 (UTC)


 * Thanks for pointing out that the majority of the main contributors to that article have to waste their time reverting your disruptive edits, insertion of OR, insertion of irrelevent information (such as your repeated insertion into the article of the fact that an author of a peer-reviewed journal article is a "director of Bering Ltd."), and poor English. Indeed, we see that you have been reverted by me, Bobbanie, Riurik, Bandurist, some anonymous address, and Kuban Kazak.  I've done it the most, because I am the most active in general.  Looking at the stats, we see that from April to August (I will leave out February and March because you didn't offer specific figures for me) I have reverted you 15 times, Bobannie has reverted you 5 times, Bandurist has reverted you 19 times, Anonymous IP's have reverted you 4 times, and Kuban Kazak has reverted you once.  I would note that there is a similar phenomenon of your edits against everyone else on the Holodomor article.  This sort of antagonistic way of editting is a pattern for you; it is certainly not a pattern for me.


 * As for your accusation about "cooperative personal attacks" - please provide the links to evidence of these accusations. I will note that when you chose to be constructive a few weeks ago there was some good work done on this article, by you among others: . This illustrates how the presence of disruptive behavior harms the effort of positive contribution.  Hopefully you will make positive choices in the future.Faustian (talk) 18:34, 28 August 2008 (UTC)
 * WP:Honest – above not listed other contributors (but not editor) to article (likeuser:Lysy which have not reverted any of my edits; allegedly insulting me OR lasted without ends from the beginning of my edits from sole editor (while – despite the numerous please to prove so (OR)– he refuse  to do so); under “repeated” here list only one instance of listing a fact  of WP:Fringe including into article by sole editor. So noting my English level reflect the civility of author. As regrds Bobbanie reverts:  based upon his own filling regarding army vs military formation  , while his attempts to “O14-USSR” mistake is awful breaching the WP reliability and clearly unknown dislike of major well referenced edits, while actually – he is not very familiar with article topic   . Rurik has only 7 (seven) edits during mentioned period (February till August )– and 1 rv in March. More then 45 rv from February till August (while I’m not suspend  my edit for 2.5 months) – You are a sole champion here. While the pattern of [user:Bandurist]] it’s actually look similar – no RS contribution (inserting of Українська Повстанська Армія - Історія нескорених - Львів, 2007) – which at least was removed from article even without my participation (while I did it as many time as such hoaxes were inserted – there is the origin of 11 Bandurist  edits). See my user page vandalism example -

As regards to cooperative actions in edited by me article – see  – so copy-pasting, blanking and edit warring became a tradition for group of editors while no traced of good faith hardly to trace – articles simply used to put users in misconceptions by OR, twisting the source text and removal of undesired info.

Indeed very interesting appearance of user:Faustian at Holdomor article – only from May 2008   . While not for contribution – but for personal attack and for hidden vandalism. which lasted even longer – but interesting – not contributions traced – just a disruptive edits and protecting disinformation from removal as also a provocative comments and stonewalling at talk page – see books claims.

I hope administrator will be able to provide a solution to prevent descriptive edits and personal attack. Thank youJo0doe (talk) 07:22, 29 August 2008 (UTC)


 * "Vandalism" on the user page was almost certainly an honest mistake - just misplacing comments intended for the talk page. It happens all the time. I am not sure I could help with the UPA article, administrators are not suppose to have special powers in the context disputes and I am not an expert on UPA. I would try to review your argument over weekend but maybe it would be better to start an WP:RFC or other forms of WP:DR? Alex Bakharev (talk) 08:01, 29 August 2008 (UTC)
 * With 2 different time "mistake" - Let it be. - Attempt of WP:RFC was made some times ago by Bobbamie - noone responded. I expect similar conduct Jo0doe (talk) 08:15, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

– blanking justified by claim for non existed consensus. blanking justified by claim for non existed discussion Stonewalling and refusal to provide any arguments – despite the clear Hoax like “UPA appeal poster”  user attempted to spammed the talk page without providing any clear pro- or counter- arguments. No contribution and preventing f other editors contributions. Jo0doe (talk) 09:33, 31 August 2008 (UTC)
 * I would like to draw you attention to bad faith in editing of users cooperative –


 * Hmmm. On the article Proclamation of Ukrainian Independence we have Jo0doe engaged in another edit war. This time another editor, User:Narking, unconnected to me or other articles has been forced to clean up the mess :. Either there is a problem with everyone else out there or something is wrong with Jo0doe  approach.  Time for some self-reflection?Faustian (talk) 13:12, 31 August 2008 (UTC)
 * WP:Honest – see user concern here – and actually origin of edit war –  – interesting no user:John0doe appeared  So in fact it’s once again bad faith approach on article editing – removal undesired information and playing around with ref. See user:Faustian habit of discussion –


 * Where is it claimed in the infobox that UPA was fighting until 1956?Faustian (talk) 03:16, 31 August 2008 (UTC)
 * and see infobox at article itself UPA. So may be would be better to define persons which provoked an edit warring and apply bad faith to their edits?Jo0doe (talk) 06:34, 1 September 2008 (UTC)
 * The infobox states "Active 1943-1949 (official); fighting until 1956". Which accurately and briefly summarized what the article states, that UPA was officuially disbanded in 1949 while some reorganized units continued fighting until 1956, the last UPA commander captured in 1954, etc. In terms of defining "which provoked an edit warring and apply bad faith to their edits", clearly and unfortunately that person has been you, as is seen on every article you touch.Faustian (talk) 12:23, 1 September 2008 (UTC)
 * WP:Honest – Article does not state any similar info UPA and OUN underground it's not a same things. As regards Kuk – as he possess the post of OUN and UHVR leader and as such he became a Chairman of Main Command (Golovna Komanda) of UPA but not last UPA Commander as erroneously assume some of publicist s– as for instance Shukevich became a Chairmen of Main Command of UPA (Golova Verkhovnoi Komandy) at August 1943 while D.Klyachkivskyy remains UPA Commander until January 1944. While such info can not be obtained from Toronto researchers and Google search – it required a library visit.

Rather interesting = but edit warring started when cooperative of editor find info which does not match their believe
 * I believe, was writing about Western Ukraine and so within that context "western Ukrainian people" seems appropriate. .Faustian (talk) 03:46, 8 February 2008 (UTC)
 * if you try disrupting the article again you'll just be reverted again.Faustian (talk) 12:30, 1 September 2008 (UTC)
 * – so any methods are good –see glaring example above and recent events here – interesting no claimed discussion exist. Just empty sentences – no reasonable reply on every issue and reason of blanking

So, dear admin – any solution for cooperative of editor which used WP to promote WP:Fringe about criminal formation responsible for sadistic extermination (posed above as “fighting”) of more then 100.000 innocent civilians (predominantly women and children and old aged persons) in 1943-46? Jo0doe (talk) 15:44, 1 September 2008 (UTC)


 * I'm not involved in reverting you on this article, so why bring it up here? More clutter?  Thanks for sharing your POV about UPA, though.Faustian (talk) 05:11, 2 September 2008 (UTC)
 * A Cooperative of editors issue. You mean Poles, Jews, Germans and Ukrainian scholars conclutionsJo0doe (talk) 07:49, 2 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Civility example

Your claims about me not providing references are simply lies - my additions to the article are well-referenced. You just don't like the references.Faustian (talk) 14:03, 4 September 2008 (UTC) Jo0doe (talk) 16:18, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

Kostan1
Hi, Alex! Just wanted to make sure about this. How do you expect him to contribute when he's indef blocked? Or did you mean on his talk page? Cheers,—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); 12:41, 27 August 2008 (UTC)


 * I meant on the talk page. Also I suppose his friends and acquaintances keep the talk page in their watchlist Alex Bakharev (talk) 12:46, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

Great Purge
Hi Alex, while I disagree with your reversion, I will not revert back since you know my view on the matter and I don't need to edit the page to make that clear. The talk page and the edit summary do not use the word "source" in the sense you described in the undoing edit. The problem with the inclusion of the image, as I stated, was the definite slant the source of the image has. If the image is being used as a decoration or an illustration (or something, point being that its a peripheral item) ideally it should not be displaying a particular view on the subject.

If you choose to reply can you reply on this page please? I am using a public IP (see my IP page)...

Thanks, 130.195.5.7 (talk) 03:48, 28 August 2008 (UTC)


 * Well, the image seems to show a mainstream opinion. Do not see any problem. Images supporting other opinions are welcome (at least as far as I am concerned) Alex Bakharev (talk) 12:39, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

User:Grey Fox-9589 aka User:Pietervhuis
Account was first used 3 days after User:Pietervhuis stopped editing and blanked his userpage after he was blocked for breaking the 3RR rule for the 6th time. He has a very similar pattern of edits as User:Pietervhuis (War In South Ossetia, Guerrilla phase of the Second Chechen War (2008), Second Chechen war, Russian Apartment bombings, Vietnam War, Shamil Basayev, Chechen Republic of Ichkeria) as anyone can see. He knew that Moreschi nominated me for 1RR restriction which was months ago despite first editing a little more than a week ago.

Pietervhuis created this account to avoid scrutiny from his block log, which now stands at 6 blocks. Can you annotate Grey Fox-9589's block log (by blocking him for one second, autoblock disabled) to include links to the block log of his prior account consistent with what User:Moreschi did here.--Miyokan (talk) 06:43, 28 August 2008 (UTC)


 * Whoever I am is none of your business Miyokan and I advice you to stop stalking me. Surprisingly you have had an old account yourself with many past blocks on it. Anyway, a user has the Right to Vanish as well as the right to create a new account. User:Pietervhuis is an inactive account and my own account User:Grey Fox-9589 isn't used for disruptive editing. If I have previous blocks an admin would easily see it anyway so there's no secrecy. Grey Fox (talk) 11:14, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

Miyokan, you know my stance on the issue when we discussed with Moreschi and Folantin the similar problem about Berkunt user. I have observed many novices that start from accumulating block logs for edit warring, violations of copyright etc. They often also give up significant personal information they would rather not make public. Thus, I feel everybody who does not have outstanding blocks, editing restrictions, etc. has the right to silently change their account name without others outing them. On the other hand, I remember Moreschi having different opinion. Maybe it is interesting to ask if he still holds it. Alex Bakharev (talk) 12:37, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

Grey Fox-9589 does seem to be making a VERY large number of edits to a number of similar, related pages, and NOTHING ELSE. Grey Fox-9589 seems to have quite a bit of familiarity with the less obvoius rules of Wikipedia, as well (judging from the edit summaries). Either an expert in a particular subject area has sat down, read Wikipedia's policies thoroughly, or this user has edited the pages he/she is altering before. Looks a bit convenient. Surely I'm not the only user who only has one account? Mariya Oktyabrskaya (talk) 16:01, 28 August 2008 (UTC)
 * This is not prohibited, as explained at length above. He has not been disruptive and has not evaded a block, unlike some others here. Please stop trolling. Colchicum (talk) 17:49, 28 August 2008 (UTC)
 * And this is certainly not warranted. Calm down, please. Colchicum (talk) 17:52, 28 August 2008 (UTC)


 * Thank you, if what Pietervhuis did is allowed then that is all I needed to know.--Miyokan (talk) 06:23, 29 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Must remember WP:AGF. Must remember WP:AGF. Must remember WP:AGF. Must remember WP:AGF. Must remember WP:AGF. Must remember WP:AGF...etc. etc. Sorry all, especially Grey Fox-9589. Mariya - x - Mariya Oktyabrskaya (talk) 19:13, 1 September 2008 (UTC)


 * The problem with Wikipedia policies and even goals is that they contradict each other. Confronting sockpuppeting and conflicts of interest contradicts protecting user privacy and the right to vanish. The result is that individual administrators can have different approach in complicated situations like this. If the approach of an admin is very unusual he or she will eventually be desysopped. I would not act if either Miyokan or Petervhius make a fresh start. Somebody else might. Will either of us desysopped for this? I do not think so. Each individual case might be different. The old accounts might generate different amount of disruption, the amount of personally-identified info in the old name might be different, etc. On the other hand, all sorts of favoritism might be possible. Theoretically, since we have almost 2000 admins with different sets of views the result should be sort of averaged to be fair Alex Bakharev (talk) 22:07, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

Map of Georgia
Alex, which rationale motivates you to treat Georgia differently than Serbia and Cyprus. Or, do you disagree with the consensus the respective authors have found there? In any case, you would do better to abstain the edit war on the main article and contribute on the talk page instead. Tomea s y T C 07:40, 29 August 2008 (UTC)
 * I did not participated in the editing of Serbia and Cyprus and I indeed disagree with the current state of affairs there. If some states recognized a country in the borders different from the others then both variants should be visible as in Morocco for example or People's Republic of China. For Serbia it is even more true then for Georgia Alex Bakharev (talk) 07:49, 29 August 2008 (UTC)
 * I have edited Serbia accordingly. Alex Bakharev (talk) 08:13, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

Image speedy deletion assistance
Image Ulica w Charkowie 1932.jpg deleted accrodingly again appeared at commons under name Jo0doe (talk) 08:27, 29 August 2008 (UTC)


 * To be honest, I am not sure about the photograph copyright status. The previous IfD rejected the idea that the image is covered by the exception to the German copyright law. If this is Ukraine, 1932, then usage of the Ukrainian copyright law seems to be grounded and it makes the photo to be public domain. Unless the photograph is misattributed I do not see copyright problems here Alex Bakharev (talk) 08:40, 29 August 2008 (UTC)
 * So arguments of parties is dobtfull.??? Ukrainian copyright law seems irrelevant to apply - as far as for author not UkrainianJo0doe (talk) 14:40, 29 August 2008 (UTC)
 * That conversation lumped this photograph from 1932 with those from 1940+. It's more than 70 years from 1932.Faustian (talk) 16:19, 29 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Photo belongs to Nazi propaganda instition publications - thus it's not more than 70 years Jo0doe (talk) 09:17, 31 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Proof?Faustian (talk) 05:05, 2 September 2008 (UTC)


 * read more preciselly - or ask partiesJo0doe (talk) 07:27, 3 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Yes, this image from 1932 was lumped in the discussion with images from a later time. And?Faustian (talk) 15:46, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

See «Hungerhölle Sowjetrussland — Das Massensterben in Sowjet „Paradies“», Völkischer Beobachter, Berlin, 18. August 1933 and Und du Siehst die Sowjets Richtig. Dr.-Ing. A. Laubenheimer. Nibelungen-Verlag. Berlin-Leipzig. 1935 for more detailsJo0doe (talk) 17:19, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

New announcment board question
Hello, please keep in mind that I have absolutely no idea what I am talking about. If this question is quite ridiculous keep that in mind.

It appears that your new article bot is the updater of the Portal:Ukraine/New article announcements 2. Lately, it seems that this page is becoming cluttered with geography stub articles created by a different bot (Kotbot). This is making everything difficult. Please, please tell me there is a way to get these Kotbot stubs not to appear on the Ukraine article board? Or is this just wishful thinking on my part? Ostap 06:44, 30 August 2008 (UTC)
 * It seems to be a new fashion to automatically generate articles by bots using some database. It usually creates a lot of stubs in a couple of days and then stops. This kotbot generated a lot of Polish geostubs and some of them leaked to the Ukraine board. As the last of bot-generated articles is of 26 August they should be archived soon anyway. In the long run I am thinking of not reporting  all the articles created by the users whose name ends with bot. Alex Bakharev (talk) 02:30, 31 August 2008 (UTC)

Moreschi's talk page
Looks at the moment as though you wrote an edit (according to the history) with my signature. Doug Weller (talk) 07:09, 31 August 2008 (UTC)
 * I know. I had to delete a few revisions per WP:BLP. Sorry about it. The text has your signature anyway Alex Bakharev (talk) 07:26, 31 August 2008 (UTC)
 * I thought it might be that, I just wasn't sure. Thanks for the explanation. Doug Weller (talk) 13:27, 31 August 2008 (UTC)

Picture
Is it possible to transfer this to Commons? Colchicum (talk) 13:40, 31 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Done Alex Bakharev (talk) 22:09, 31 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Thanks! Colchicum (talk) 22:11, 31 August 2008 (UTC)
 * By the way, could you please delete the misleading interwikis in Russian Wikipedia? However, I am not sure that this will work if the link is left in other wikis. I have no idea how to stop the bots. Colchicum (talk) 22:18, 31 August 2008 (UTC)
 * I have removed the iw in ruwiki. Don't know if it stay. BTW why could not you do it yourself, do you have problems editing ruwiki? Alex Bakharev (talk) 23:16, 31 August 2008 (UTC)

Scholars work review by WP:editor
A work by National Academy of Science of Ukraine recently received in depth review by WP:Editor. Sorry, number of authors doesn't equal reliability. Number of pages also doesn't equal reliability, either. But Burds obtained his Ph.D. in History from one of the top univeristies in the world (Yale) and is currently involved with the number one university (Harvard). The guys at the Institute of History are from unknown universities and working at a place with an international reputation far worse than that of Yale and Harvard. I don't know al their backgrounds, altrhough one (Kulchitsky) was a former ideologue for the Ukrainian Communist party. As I've already taught you, the Universiy of Toronto (Magocsi) is also a top world university (#18 or #24, depending on the ranking). The Institute of History's authors aren't affiliated with any university in the top 500. While number of pages and number of authors might impress you, this quantity over quality approach doesn't seem to impress anyone else.Faustian (talk) 05:23, 2 September 2008 (UTC) Can we add this stuff to as a best stonewalling exampleJo0doe (talk) 07:50, 2 September 2008 (UTC) More wider explanation of stonewalling example Sorry, your excuses are not very impressive. You try to comapre the Institute of History of the Ukrainian Academy of Sciences with Yale, Harvard or even the University of Toronto? Sorry, the researchers at the Institute are mostly graduates of universities, such as the University of Odessa, that are not even close in reputation to the universities from which Magosci or Burds emerged from. So they are handicapped from the start. And this handicap continues. Do you truly believe that the Institute of History is even close to the history departments of Yale, Harvard, or the University of Toronot in terms of reputation? Sorry, but you are comparing minor league players to star athletes. Please don't confuse quantity for quality and don't compare University of Odessa or Institute of History of the Ukrainian Academy of Sciences to Yale, Harvard or even University of Toronto. It just makes you look silly. Keep in mind that the staff in the Institute of History were trained in places such as University of Odessa, whose international reputation ranks below, for example, New Mexico State University of Las Cruces or the University of Memphis, Tennessee in Elvis Presley's hometown. The fact that this unknown around the word Institute self-publishes hundreds of articles that go unread or cannot be found outsiode that institute (yet, rather few articles in international journals) doesn't mean much, because quantity does not equal quality. Really - trying to compare the Institute of History of the Ukrainian Academy of Sciences with Yale or Harvard. Funny, indeed. So next time that the Institue of History contradicts, say, Magosci's or Burds' work, the first thing you ought to do is ask yourself what the historians at the Institute got wrong. Okay?Faustian (talk) 20:55, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

Jo0doe (talk) 07:26, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

Possible sock of Captain Obvious and his crime-fighting dog
Hi Alex Bakharev, I saw you had blocked Obvious recently. I have suspected based on choice of topics and general attitude that before creating the Obvious account this individual was editing as User_talk:84.234.60.154. Now I'm even more convinced.
 * The IP stopped editing after May 24, 2008.
 * Obvious account was created May 25, 2008.
 * Obvious was blocked indefinitely by you on August 27, 2008
 * The IP resumed editing on August 29, 2008.

Given the similarity of style, topics, and the dates, I think there may be enough evidence to make a sock-puppet connection here. Would you mind looking into it?--Stor stark7 Speak 09:35, 2 September 2008 (UTC)


 * Yes, it is him. Blocked Alex Bakharev (talk) 09:50, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

Articles for deletion/Daniel McCormack
I have a higher threshhold for G1 then many new page patrollers. I understood what he was trying to say but didn't buy it. I didn't buy the assertion of notability either but nevertheless it was there. Anybody else would have probably speedied it but I'm trying to follow the rules. Now everybody can line up and tell me about WP:IAR :) --Ron Ritzman (talk) 02:09, 3 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Oh yea, by any chance were the other 2 deleted versions the same BS? --Ron Ritzman (talk) 02:11, 3 September 2008 (UTC)
 * They were even worse Alex Bakharev (talk) 02:13, 3 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Actually the first one might be about a different person: a bass-guitarist of a non-notable band. The second one is probably the same shit. It only says Daniel McCormic is a 15 year old boy Alex Bakharev (talk) 02:20, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

User_talk:24.93.236.98
Alex,

Thanks for blocking this user before. S/he seems to be at it again with a vengance. Can you help again? Thanks! Jclemens (talk) 22:30, 3 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Blocked Alex Bakharev (talk) 22:59, 3 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Thank you for your prompt response. Not knowing if you were around, I also filed a WP:AN3 notice, which you can feel free to mark as resolved. Jclemens (talk) 23:02, 3 September 2008 (UTC)
 * FYI, this user is back at it again, after a third block. Thanks! Jclemens (talk) 16:07, 8 September 2008 (UTC)
 * And already blocked for a month Alex Bakharev (talk) 22:33, 8 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Yep, and now working with a pretty obvious sockpuppet of User:Nintendoman01. Hasn't gotten too aggressive yet, but is continuing to edit disruptively without talking to anyone about anything, and this doesn't seem serious enough to RFCU over. Thanks for looking in again! Jclemens (talk) 23:46, 8 September 2008 (UTC)
 * I have given him 48h block. If he starts editwarring or suckpuppeting again after the block I would block him for longer period Alex Bakharev (talk) 03:09, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

Please UnBlock me
Hi, I got banned for 2 weeks for making "disruptive edit summarys" the edits themselfs were good but the summarys were not. My account has about 700 edits, most of which are constructive and tagged lots of stuff for deletion. Please unban me before my brother finds out i got one of his accounts banned.:( My real username is KingsOfHearts Thank you for your time. —Preceding unsigned comment added by HelpPlease234 (talk • contribs) 23:05, 3 September 2008 (UTC)


 * Well, incivil edit summaries are considered a bad sin in Wikipedia. You can edit incivil comment but the incivil summary will sit in the history forever. Still 2 weeks for the first offense looks like a little bit to harsh, I would talk with DragonFly. And BTW please do not edit anything with this account rather than only argue the matters of your block. It would mean avoidance of the original block and usually leads to resetting of the original block Alex Bakharev (talk) 00:16, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

Thank youHelpPlease234 (talk) 00:22, 4 September 2008 (UTC)


 * Another point, of course, is that if he's using his brother's account, that means the account was compromised and should be banned indefinitely. Anyway, if you want to reduce the ban to one week, I won't object. DS (talk) 00:50, 4 September 2008 (UTC)


 * Done Alex Bakharev (talk) 01:49, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

Sneaky vandalism
Can be such edits   reported as vandalism: type – sneaky ? User warned 2 times – and

Such bad faith tactic was initially applied by user:Faustian  –

Tactics described as follow: - while fixing grammar and typo also removed or distorted information – assumed as undesired – as far as it labeled as “Russian (communist etc) Propaganda, POV's etc” Thank you for advice in further actionsJo0doe (talk) 07:14, 4 September 2008 (UTC) Removal of undesired info with OR  editing talk page from my warning or twisting it Jo0doe (talk) 14:08, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

See this stuff

Dear Editor - you engaged in sneaky spelling correction [3] [4] [5] - I aplogise for my stupidity however please limit your edits on fixing my grimmar only. Assume this as a second warning, otherwise I will resort to further buffudlement Jo0doe (talk) 14:02, 3 September 2008 (UTC) Jo0doe (talk) 16:28, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

This looks quite retarded. Learn to use the spelling and grammar checker. 217.12.203.118 (talk) 13:35, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

Headley Down
FT2 has referred me to you as an expert in the matter of Headley Down. I have worked through many of the extensive series of edits made by this person and his or her sockpuppets. Though they are flawed some ways, I don't think they are so bad as FT2 claims. Do you have any comments? Peter Damian (talk) 21:13, 4 September 2008 (UTC)


 * I am not an expert on Headley Down. Never met any of his socks or edited affected articles. All my knowledge about this guy is from FT2. I believed he had a sockpuppet farm (tens of them). This is a usual case for a long of an indefinite block Alex Bakharev (talk) 23:00, 4 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Thanks. Exactly as I thought.  Peter Damian (talk) 17:59, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

Lomonosov at National University of Kyiv-Mohyla Academy
You recently removed Lomonosov from alumni of the Kyiv-Mohyla Academy. You may reconsider your opinion after you read his biography, for instance here: http://ssga.ru/erudites_info/peoples/lomonosov/part01.html. He was a student in Kiev only for a short time. There is a plaque on modern Kyiv-Mohyla Academy commemorating this: http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Image:Plaque_of_Lomonosov.JPG Silin2005 (talk) 11:42, 5 September 2008 (UTC)
 * OK, you are right. Alex Bakharev (talk) 21:28, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

IP block
Since you were the last to block, I figured I would let you know that as soon as their 2 days block was up they went immediately back to their usual, disruptive edits.  BIGNOLE     (Contact me)  23:19, 5 September 2008 (UTC)
 * He is already blocked for 55h Alex Bakharev (talk) 01:17, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

Kostopil-Kostopol
Здравствуйте, помогите удалить (или посоветуйте как это сделать) одну из статей о городе Костополь, так как их почему-то существует 2 в английской версии. Правильная версия - Kostopil. Спасибо —Preceding unsigned comment added by Koshelyev (talk • contribs) 00:29, 7 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Done Alex Bakharev (talk) 01:24, 7 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Was he asking me the same thing here? -Royalguard11 (T) 17:55, 7 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Yes. I have merged two articles to the one with Ukrainian spelling Alex Bakharev (talk) 22:14, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

Userpage protection
Would you mind doing mine as well? Same guy is tagging me as FT2. rootology ( C )( T ) 01:28, 7 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Done Alex Bakharev (talk) 01:30, 7 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Thanks rootology ( C )( T ) 01:30, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

khoikhoi
khoikhoi has blind reverted my edits even those which are in the grammar, i think you should view my edits before reverting and see that he reverts all my contributions--MARVEL (talk) 01:27, 8 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Can you provide an example? Have you tried to persuade him on talk pages? Alex Bakharev (talk) 02:40, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

COI, BLP etc.
Could you please pay attention to what is going on here. Colchicum (talk) 13:28, 9 September 2008 (UTC)
 * I have reverted to your version and asked the user for references. He might be somehow connected with this politician as it appears to be SPA. On the other hand, I guess that the current article is very Russia-centric. His participation in Yeltsin business is not the most important info for a prominent politician and businessman. Lets wait for sourced info Alex Bakharev (talk) 14:17, 9 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Well, maybe it is him. I have already met some celebrities, so I wouldn't be surprised. I really don't hold any grudges against him, but this guy is notable especially for his participation in the Russian affairs among other things. But I wouldn't like to edit this article if someone feels strong about it, especially among politicians/businesspeople. Colchicum (talk) 16:55, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

New articles section for WikiProject Newfoundland and Labrador
Hi Bakharev, May I ask for your assistance in setting up a New article page similar to those created for other WikiProject pages (reference: WikiProject Canada/New articles)! --HJKeats (talk) 12:54, 10 September 2008 (UTC)


 * Thank you very much Bakharev for developing the code to monitor new pages created with Newfoundland content. A couple of questions, do I have to do anything to create the New article page i.e. WikiProject Newfoundland and Labrador/New articles and is there a place I can add variables (terms/words) to make sure I capture new article content pertinent to Newfoundland and Labrador and its many subjects! Again, thanks very much for responding to my request, --HJKeats (talk) 00:33, 12 September 2008 (UTC)


 * Once I will be sure the robot doing something useful there I would add the feed to your New article page Alex Bakharev (talk) 01:05, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

Done Alex Bakharev (talk) 23:37, 12 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Thank you very much. May I ask if there are any instructions to add variables. Thanks --HJKeats (talk) 01:37, 14 September 2008 (UTC)

Signpost updated for August 25 and September 8, 2008.
You are receiving this message because you have signed up for the Signpost spamlist. If you wish to stop receiving these messages, simply remove your name from the list. Ralbot (talk) 20:47, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

Bad faith
Alex, this is rather inappropriate and bad-faithed. Please consider refactoring or removing. Thank you, --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus 05:06, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

Sevastopol
Hi Alex, I noticed that you removed information from Sevastopol and placed noticed on Talk:Sevastopol. The same information was also placed at Russia–Ukraine relations with notices at Talk:Russia–Ukraine_relations. User:Biophys seems intent to revert this information back into the articles. As you noted, WP:CRISTALL (a lovely drop too it is!), and as I noted WP:UNDUE; the event didn't occur, and the amount of space given to "coulda's" is not warranted. Can you please drop into both talk pages, and reaffirm that such things don't belong for reasons given by all parties, and moreso when said editor seems intent to add it only due to his own persuasions and POV. Cheers --Russavia Dialogue Stalk me 19:12, 13 September 2008 (UTC)

Kosovo stubs
Hi Alex, as an admin could you please look at something for me. Category:Kosovo stubs and Category:Kosovo geography stubs. I created, without realising the procedures, Category:South Ossetia stubs and Category:Abkhazia stubs. User:Grutness has nominated both the A & SO stub types for deletion and is also the creator of the Kosovo stubs. Nothing to do with the deletion, that will stay or fall on its own merits, but I was hoping you could add Category:Serbia stubs and Category:Serbia geography stubs to both of the Kosovo stub types; one of the Kosovo cats was protected immediately after creation; the other was not, to which I added the Serbia category, which Grutness removed and then proceeded to protect. When creating the A & SO cats, I ensured that Georgia cats was placed in order to prevent any POV concerns; the removal of Serbia cats from Kosovo cats is not quite acceptable given POV concerns. If they are protected after the addition in order to prevent edit warring, so be it, but categories, as well as articles, have to stick to NPOV, and the current setup doesn't. I'd appreciate it if you could address this, as it will have more weight coming from an admin I tend to think. --Tovarishch Komissar Dialogue Stalk me 20:26, 14 September 2008 (UTC)
 * P.S. Have a look at this Bit of humour for the day. --Tovarishch Komissar Dialogue Stalk me 21:04, 14 September 2008 (UTC)

3RR case about Stefan Banach
Hello Alex. The effect of your semi-protection of Stefan Banach is that you've decided the outcome of the 3RR case that the IP filed about this article. It is not common to see blocks issued if a protection is already in place. Maybe you want to check out the various arguments at WP:AN3 and see what you think? (I don't know if you've seen them already or not). EdJohnston (talk) 02:28, 15 September 2008 (UTC)
 * I have commented on your decision on AN3. I completely agree with your judgement Alex Bakharev (talk) 02:58, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

WP:NOR and WP:NOHOAXES
Again in article UPA returned hoax and OR per WP:SYN Thank you in advice for protecting WP from propagandistic hoaxes Coopertive effort to doctoring history at WP still lasted WP:IDONTLIKEIT - We greet the victorious German Army as deliver from enemy. We render our obedient homage to the government which has been erected. We recognize Mr.Yaroslav Stetsko as Head of State Administration of the Ukraine. The pastoral letter was read over the radio by chaplain of Nachtigall Battalion Father Hryn’okh the same morning. It appeared to have removed any doubts which may have been lingering in the mind of most prominent Ukrainians in L’vov concerning the origin of the Stets’ko government. [13]
 * With the occupation of Ukraine by the Red Army,
 * Areas of UPA activity were depopulated, the estimates on numbers vary, officially Soviet archives state that between 1944 and 1952 a total of 182,543 people [79][80] while other sources indicate the number may have been as high as to 500,000.

from John Armstrong, Ukrainian Nationalism, 2nd edition: New York: Columbia University Press, 1963) pp.80-81 Jo0doe (talk) 07:04, 15 September 2008 (UTC) -
 * Both edits of Bobanni are quite complex, that included e.g. spelling fixes (e.g. there is no such English word as Defence) as well as less defensible edits. Can you consolidate an edit that combines best features of both versions? Alex Bakharev (talk) 08:22, 15 September 2008 (UTC)
 * First edits - not Bobbanie, but Faustian - So which one is the best features - WP:RS or hoaxes covered by not WP:V sources? Please adviceJo0doe (talk) 07:06, 16 September 2008 (UTC)
 * While see this stuff:

- Cooperative of editors does not like specific text Commission majority does not believe that the 1932-33 famine was systematically organized to crush the Ukrainian nation once and for all. Jo0doe (talk) 07:11, 16 September 2008 (UTC)   Seems like group of editor simply censoring WP for unwanted info and put WP visitors in misconseption by hiding the historical facts. Please advice a solution against such effortJo0doe (talk) 05:56, 17 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Cooperative actions

AlexNewArtbot isn't logged in
AlexNewArtBot appears to be editing as Special:Contributions/165.228.204.166. ~ User:Ameliorate!  (with the !) (talk) 10:38, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

Biophys, Russavia, Miyokan
May I ask your opinion about this: ? The harassment campain must be stopped immediately. Any suggestions? Colchicum (talk) 14:36, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

Hi, Alex. I think a lot depends on you. Could you please answer  this my question at the ANI - one way or another? It is pretty obvious that after making this arrangement, Russavia decided to join the "fight" and came out with the message posted by Colchichum above. I have absolutely nothing against Russavia (he is a very productive contributor), and I am willing collaborate with any Russian users in the future if they want to collaborate with me. None of us needs any conficts undermining the WP purpose. Your clear answer would certainly help this. I am going only to ask opinion of Biology editors on the article mentioned by Russavia - that is the least I must do to dispel the accusations of WP:COI.Biophys (talk) 16:00, 15 September 2008 (UTC)


 * I have blocked Miyokan for two weeks. Russavia is blocked by Moreschi for the same length. The madness is indeed have to be stopped Alex Bakharev (talk) 23:11, 15 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Thank you. This ANI ban apparently failed. I am going to spend much less time here.Biophys (talk) 03:06, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

Talk:Victory
Hi Alex. I'm not sure why, but Talk:Victory was deleted per (Deletion log); 19:46. . MZMcBride (Talk | contribs) deleted "Talk:Victory" (csd g7). Do you mind putting it back?

Regards--mrg3105 (comms) ♠ ♥ ♦ ♣ 15:05, 16 September 2008 (UTC)


 * At the time of deletion it was only a redirect to Talk:Victory (disambiguation). I guess the talk you are looking is there Alex Bakharev (talk) 05:49, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

???
You Russian bitch, put Giambigarchy back on wikipedia before I bomb you back to WWII. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.195.165.162 (talk • contribs)

Who is Giambigarchy and why do you think he/she/it should be onwiki? Alex Bakharev (talk) 05:46, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

Russavia
As you are apparently the only admin Russavia may wish to listen to now, could you please explain to him that under no circumstances such remarks are appropriate. The information that X is Y is not freely available, and publishing it in the form of a COI warning or in any other form including the aforementioned diff constitutes outing. Otherwise I am afraid he will end up permabanned very soon, and rightly so. Colchicum (talk) 15:03, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

Assistance Setting Up New Wiki
Greetings. My name is Avery and I discovered you via the Wikipedians community on LiveJournal. I'm a Dungeons and Dragons player and I'm setting up a new campaign setting via the ScribbleWiki service (using MediaWiki), but I'm having a great deal of trouble getting some of the backend stuff working. If you have a moment, would you be willing to assist me in making things like Infobox templates work?

The wiki is located at Brenham Campaign Setting. I've tried copying over basically all the templates that were eventually links through the original copy of the Template:Infobox Person (which I was using to base Infobox) but thus far it doesn't seem to be actually working. You can see an example of that issue here. Thank you! --Avery W. Krouse (talk) 04:58, 18 September 2008 (UTC)
 * I cannot open your link so I am of no help here. I have almost zero experience with the backend functioning of wiki and not much of free time, so I doubt I would be much of the help anyway. On the other hand I guess I could make Infoboxes working on your wikiit does not look like a big job Alex Bakharev (talk) 05:40, 18 September 2008 (UTC)
 * The day I start working on the project again is the day ScribbleWiki's servers go down! I'll drop you a note when they come back online. Would you be able to recommend any other wikipedians who might be able to assist? --Avery W. Krouse (talk) 06:53, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

Relation between scientists and the project
Алекс, в Вашей предвыборной программе был пункт по поводу отношений Википедии и научного сообщества. У меня есть некоторые идеи на эту тему, и мне кажется, что, чтобы тут что-то сделать, нужны совместные действия на межпроектном уровне. Если Вам всё ещё интересно, можно обсудить более подробно, здесь (на любом языке) или по мейлу. Чтобы было понятно, с кем Вы говорите, я администратор рувики, плюс к этому вот моя профессиональная страничка (полгода не апдейтил, но представление получите).--Yaroslav Blanter (talk) 15:01, 18 September 2008 (UTC)


 * Interesting/Интересно. We can talk here or start a special page (maybe on meta?) Alex Bakharev (talk) 03:14, 19 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Pls have a look: meta:User:Yaroslav Blanter/Temp17. It can obviously be moved into the meta space, also I guess other people might get interested. --Yaroslav Blanter (talk) 12:25, 21 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Take criminalists (Wulfson, Kv75) on your team of scientists. SA ru (talk) 04:02, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

User:Russavia is blocked or not?
I saw you undid an edit on User:Russavia which said he is blocked. But it looks like he is blocked... It would be nice if there would be an explanation on his userpage if/why he is blocked and for how long. Mariah-Yulia (talk) 17:01, 19 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Russavia's block log is available as http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Log&type=block&page=User%3ARussavia . He is blocked for 14 days by Moreschi for harassing User:Biophys . Russavia was erroneously banned indefinitely as a sockpuppet of Miyokan, after the error in checkuser was discovered the original block was reinstated. As a customary measure we blank user pages of indefinitely banned users and sockpuppets. We do not blank user pages of users on short blocks that is why I have restored Russavia's userpage. Alex Bakharev (talk) 00:43, 20 September 2008 (UTC)

Your DYK nom
Hi Alex, just letting you know that I left a comment here with a question about the referencing in your DYK nomination of the Olga Vasiliyevna Lepeshinskaya article. It's currently in the expiring noms section. Cheers, :-) Jamie ☆S93  19:05, 19 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Sorry, I have not noticed the discussion earlier. Usually if a whole paragraph is referenced to a single source, I just put ref at the end of paragraph. Should probably refer the hook separately to make fact checking easier. Anyway it is to late now, hopefully not the last DYK anyway Alex Bakharev (talk) 00:47, 20 September 2008 (UTC)

Image copyright problem with Image:Magomayev.jpg
Thanks for uploading Image:Magomayev.jpg. You've indicated that the image is being used under a claim of fair use, but you have not provided an adequate explanation for why it meets Wikipedia's requirements for such images. In particular, for each page the image is used on, the image must have an explanation linking to that page which explains why it needs to be used on that page. Can you please check


 * That there is a non-free use rationale on the image's description page for each article the image is used in.
 * That every article it is used on is linked to from its description page.

This is an automated notice by FairuseBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Media copyright questions. --FairuseBot (talk) 00:58, 20 September 2008 (UTC)

A question for you
At Wikipedia talk:Requests for arbitration/Piotrus 2/Workshop. Thank you, --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus 14:39, 20 September 2008 (UTC)

Signpost updated for September 15, 2008.
You are receiving this message because you have signed up for the Signpost spamlist. If you wish to stop receiving these messages, simply remove your name from the list. Ralbot (talk) 04:58, 21 September 2008 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free image (Image:Magomayev.jpg)
 Thanks for uploading Image:Magomayev.jpg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. Do you want to opt out of receiving this notice? Aspects (talk) 15:52, 21 September 2008 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free image (Image:Boyarsky.jpg)
 Thanks for uploading Image:Boyarsky.jpg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. Do you want to opt out of receiving this notice? Aspects (talk) 15:58, 21 September 2008 (UTC)

Disputed non-free use rationale for Image:Magomayev.jpg
Thank you for uploading Image:Magomayev.jpg. However, there is a concern that the rationale provided for using this image on Wikipedia may not meet the criteria required by Non-free content. This can be corrected by going to the image description page and add or clarify the reason why the image qualifies under this policy. Adding and completing one of the templates available from Non-free use rationale guideline is an easy way to ensure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy. Please be aware that a non-free use rationale is not the same as an image copyright tag; descriptions for images used under the non-free content policy require both a copyright tag and a non-free use rationale.

If it is determined that the image does not qualify under the non-free content policy, it might be deleted by an administrator within a few days in accordance with our criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions, please ask them at the media copyright questions page. Thank you. Aspects (talk) 23:53, 21 September 2008 (UTC)

Disputed non-free use rationale for Image:Boyarsky.jpg
Thank you for uploading Image:Boyarsky.jpg. However, there is a concern that the rationale provided for using this image on Wikipedia may not meet the criteria required by Non-free content. This can be corrected by going to the image description page and add or clarify the reason why the image qualifies under this policy. Adding and completing one of the templates available from Non-free use rationale guideline is an easy way to ensure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy. Please be aware that a non-free use rationale is not the same as an image copyright tag; descriptions for images used under the non-free content policy require both a copyright tag and a non-free use rationale.

If it is determined that the image does not qualify under the non-free content policy, it might be deleted by an administrator within a few days in accordance with our criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions, please ask them at the media copyright questions page. Thank you. Aspects (talk) 23:54, 21 September 2008 (UTC)

bot question
After checking the article twice, I need to ask. How did this article get posted to Ukraine new article announcement? Is there some keyword that I missed? Ostap 23:20, 22 September 2008 (UTC)
 * The stupid bot thought that the reference http://www.crimeandinvestigation.co.uk is about Crimea. I have fixed the rule Alex Bakharev (talk) 23:33, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

The Winter Palace
I am within a few hours/days of putting User:Giano/The Winter Palace into mainspace - I would appreciate any further comments/advice you may have. I have already put a few of the rooms ect into mainspace, as their is insifficient room for them all one one page. Giano (talk) 17:23, 23 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Giano, count me in. I will start this weekend Alex Bakharev (talk) 12:09, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

Universities
Is this ok? I don't think so. Colchicum (talk) 21:11, 24 September 2008 (UTC)
 * I prefer to have WP:RM before moving established articles. Still if the official names (as said on the Universities' websites) are the new ones I cannot see anything wrong here Alex Bakharev (talk) 13:41, 26 September 2008 (UTC)

Milhist new articles list
I was wondering whether it was possible to have a modified version of for use in our assessment dept. The existing version is too big to use there and takes too long to load. Ideally, the shortened version would only cover the last two days and would be separated by date headers like this:

26 September 2008
 * 1) HMS Albacore (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) by Benea (talk · contribs)
 * 2) J35 (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) by Nono64 (talk · contribs)
 * 3) Joshua Uptain (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) by Robert1982USA (talk · contribs)
 * 4) Philip of Dreux (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) by Charles Matthews (talk · contribs)
 * 5) HMS Akbar (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) by Benea (talk · contribs)
 * 6) Herbert Panknin (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) by MisterBee1966 (talk · contribs)

25 September 2008
 * 1) HMS Albacore (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) by Benea (talk · contribs)
 * 2) J35 (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) by Nono64 (talk · contribs)
 * 3) Joshua Uptain (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) by Robert1982USA (talk · contribs)
 * 4) Philip of Dreux (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) by Charles Matthews (talk · contribs)
 * 5) HMS Akbar (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) by Benea (talk · contribs)
 * 6) Herbert Panknin (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) by MisterBee1966 (talk · contribs)

Is this possible? Thanks for your time, -- R OGER D AVIES  talk 11:16, 26 September 2008 (UTC)


 * It is certainly possible but it would require modification of the bot code. I will put it on the plans Alex Bakharev (talk) 13:44, 26 September 2008 (UTC)


 * Very kind of you. Thank you, -- R OGER D AVIES  talk 13:58, 26 September 2008 (UTC)

Proclamation of Ukrainian statehood, 1941 issue
edit warring and OR initiated by   - no arguments providing. Look like another attempt to put WP visitors through misconseption and OR. Please advice a solution Jo0doe (talk) 08:03, 29 September 2008 (UTC)
 * As noted, that info belongs in its entirety in the Ukrainian-German collaboration during World War II article, with a brief summary in this article, in some sort of background section. For some reason you refuse to do that.Faustian (talk) 12:14, 29 September 2008 (UTC)
 * You are not familiar with a topic (as far as I remember you expirinced a difficulties with John Alexander Armstrong, Ukrainian Nationalism, Columbia University Press, 1963 - you simple never read it)), unfortunatelly. So please do not protect OR and blanking of one of cooperative member Jo0doe (talk) 14:03, 29 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Another inaccurate claim of yours to add to the long list.Faustian (talk) 02:56, 30 September 2008 (UTC)


 * Dear administrator, please see this perfect example of bad faith editing - - 10:27, 29 September 2008 Bandurist (Talk | contribs) (11,282 bytes) (Punctuation) (undo) Jo0doe (talk) 14:05, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

Your page protection habits
Hi. A month is an excessive amount of time to semi-protect an article (e.g. Windows Server 2008, that was the subject of two minor vandalism edits by a single anonymous editor on a non-BLP article. Per the expectations of Wikipedia's protection policy, please stop doing this.  Disallowing the majority of the planet from editing the encyclopedia for weeks at a time does greater damage to the encyclopedia than a few vandalism edits which are quickly and routinely cleaned up by bots and reviewing editors.  You're also creating additional work for other administrators and editors that are left scratching their heads over, and reversing, these excessive actions.

Wayne Coyne, Hollister Co., San Ramon Valley High School, and J. P. Morgan are other articles you've recently semi-protected for weeks that don't merit semi-protection. It'd be appreciated if you unprotect these yourself, but if you don't, I'll put them all up at WP:RFPP and someone else will do it.  Warren -talk- 13:31, 30 September 2008 (UTC)


 * FYI, I reduced your semi-protection of Tulip mania, which is Today's Featured Article. - auburn pilot  talk  19:20, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

I have unprotected most of the articles as you requested Alex Bakharev (talk) 21:32, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the picture
Hey, I appreciate your adding the picture to the Vladimir Sollogub entry I created; it really improves it! Languagehat (talk) 18:32, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

WP:SHIPS New articles
Noticed that we haven't had an update to the new article page in about 4 days. Just wondering if there's a problem? WikiProject_Ships/New_articles. --Brad (talk) 13:57, 1 October 2008 (UTC)
 * I am not sure what you mean. It looks like the search result is updating daily Alex Bakharev (talk) 04:34, 2 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Something strange is going on. A little while after I posted the above, WikiProject_Ships/New_articles had begun to show new articles however, User:AlexNewArtBot/ShipsLog is showing ship articles that have met the points needed but aren't showing at /New_articles. As of this moment there are several articles at the log that aren't appearing on the new article page. Purging my browser cache does not help any. --Brad (talk) 17:07, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free image (Image:Okudzhava-chasovye.jpg)
 Thanks for uploading Image:Okudzhava-chasovye.jpg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. Do you want to opt out of receiving this notice? Aspects (talk) 14:32, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free image (Image:TandS Nikitins Vivaldy.jpg)
 Thanks for uploading Image:TandS Nikitins Vivaldy.jpg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. Do you want to opt out of receiving this notice? Aspects (talk) 15:07, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

Merging Russian projects into one project - your input requested
Hi, you are receiving this message as you are a member of WikiProject Russian history. I have made a proposal to merge several Russian related projects into WP:RUSSIA. You can view the proposal at Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Russian_history. As a member of the Russian history project, your input is requested; so that all editors are reading off the same page please limit discussion to Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Russia/Proposal. We all look forward to your input. --Russavia Dialogue Stalk me 10:23, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

El Lissitzky FAR and article
Hi Alex, how are you? I was wondering if you wanted to help with the El Lissitzky article and FAR. With the help of some other editors, we've added quite a bit of sourcing and have momentum for more. Sourcing was one of the reasons it was looking at being delisted. The images are another. I know you have some experience and expertise in this, would you mind taking a look? Do you know if the Commons has a template other than PD-Soviet which would be applicable? If not do you want to help copying them to en: and adding fair use templates and rationales? Vsego horoshego, dvdrw 00:11, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

Hi, could you take a look. A certain User:Freepsbane is desperately trying to put his personal inventions into the article infobox. None of his 'sources' (a blog, a few newspaper articles etc) even have the term Anti-Neoliberalism, which might just as well be a word thought out by the very user. (Compare article talk). 80.235.111.150 (talk) 08:13, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

Question on copyright of images
Do you know anything about image copyright? I wonder if we can use images from ingushetia.org It says at the bottom "Copyright © 2001-2008 "Ингушетия.Org". При полном или частичном использовании материалов ссылка на "Ингушетия.Org" обязательна." Does this fall under any license? Thanks. Grey Fox (talk) 02:57, 5 October 2008 (UTC) Thanks a lot for the answer. Now I'm left with two more questions:
 * It is a tricky question. Usually Russian sites mean something like Attribution then they post such notes. In the past we often labeled such images as Attribution and used them. Nobody ever complained. Unfortunately our copyright people usually think differently and put such images on IfD, most of them do not survived. I would suggest to contact the webmaster of the site, explain to him/her that allowing "free license" like Attribution or cc-by-sa-3.0 for their images they get a win/win situation. They do not loose anything as the attribution is still required but the popularity of the image (google/alexa rank of the site) significantly increase, meaning better revenue from the ads and/or better visibility of their POV. Small sites almost always allow free licensing if you pester them long enough. Larger sites are more tricky still Russavia eventually succeded in persuading the Presidential Administration of Russia to release the Kremlin.ru images with free licenses. Alex Bakharev (talk) 04:09, 5 October 2008 (UTC)
 * What do I really need included in the request e-mail when I ask for a license? Do they only have to reply with "Yes you can use the images", and then how does Commons know if my e-mail of them is legitimate? Surely someone can falsify an e-mail?
 * Russavia did a great job on gaining free lincesed images. Is this limited to Kremlin.ru images? Or can we use the government sites of Russian republics/oblasts too? Grey Fox (talk) 21:14, 5 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Please check commons:Commons:OTRS. The E-mail from the site should be forwarded to permissions-commons@wikimedia.org or any of the OTRS volunteers. If they would suspect something fishy is going on they would contact the website owners themselves. It is important that E-mail had something indicating that they are agree with their image having some "free licenses", e.g. Attribution or cc-by-sa-3.0. WMF's goal is to have "free as a speech" material so we cannot accept "Wikipedia-only materials". CC-by-sa is actually a quite restrictive license, they should attribute the original author and it is only valid for CC publications, so the copyright holders donot give up much.
 * Unfortunately, Russavia only got us the permissions for kremlin.ru. He managed to make Medvedev's spokesperson to fax the permissions for kremlin.ru to WMF. Most of the Russian Government websites belong to Putin' apparatus. There everything should be started anew Alex Bakharev (talk) 00:10, 6 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Thanks a lot for the answers. I will attempt to gain permission of several websites soon. I still have one question, but I'm not sure if you are the right person to ask. I checked the licensing of Human Rights Watch's images, and they state the following: "Our graphics are protected by the same copyright as our reports. HRW materials may be reproduced according to the terms of our Creative Commons License. Please review this license carefully before reproducing any HRW materials. By reproducing HRW materials, you agree to abide by the terms of this Creative Commons License." This is their link for the license:, can we use this material on commons? Grey Fox (talk) 01:04, 7 October 2008 (UTC)
 * We can't use HRW materials as they do not allow for non-commercial or derivative works. We can only use materials released under CC-BY (Attribution) or CC-BY-SA (Attribution Sharealike), as these licences allow commercial use. When asking for permissions you need to get clear and explicit confirmation that they are allowing materials to be used under one of those licences. --Russavia Dialogue Stalk me 01:45, 7 October 2008 (UTC)
 * (Editconflict) Unfortunately they link cc-by-nc-nd license that is both Non Commercial and Non-Derivative license. Commons does not allow non commercial licenses (because someone may want to eventually publish our works on paper or CD and charge something for this) nor Non derivative (because we want to make collages, crop outs, etc.). I guess we can still use the images on en-wiki as fair use if the WP:FUC is satisfied or we might negotiate copyright holders some pictures to be released by a less restrictive license Alex Bakharev (talk) 01:50, 7 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Sorry for butting in on your talk page here Alex. In regards to Ingushetia.org, the copyright notice basically does allow for Attribution, however, one has to be very careful in using materials from private websites, as it is possible that they don't hold copyright for some materials (particularly photos) located on their website. I've seen this all too often on non-government (i.e. private) websites in Russia, so that really has to be kept in mind. --Russavia Dialogue Stalk me 01:57, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

Warning
Although I believe every single word in my comment in User:07fan talk page was true, I understand that it was uncivil. The sad thing is you did not warn him/her of anything he/she did. And this might sound crazy, but from my experience here in wikipedia I know that user 07fan is a sock puppet. --Lanov (talk) 15:47, 5 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Well, if you know some statement was incivil then why have not you refactor it? Many good editors were blocked of incivility, you know. If you have a problem with an editor's behavior then the best way is to start WP:RFC, administrators do not have much of a freedom of actions unless an obvious violation of the policies occur. I do not closely monitor Iranian issues, they are outside my editorial expertise. Still some editors complain to me about problems in the area and I am doing my best trying to fix it. That basically mean that if nobody complain to me about a conflict in the area then I would would not aware of it. Regarding sockpuppeting. WP:SOCK does not forbid users who have had a rough start to switch to another account unless they are banned, on some sort of editorial restrictions, simultaneously edit the same page with many accounts, etc. I was under impression that 07fan is this case Alex Bakharev (talk) 23:47, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

Cooperative edit warring
A cooperative of editors again provoced an edit warring: Under Discruption title







and under reverting vandalism title





Cooperative avoid to discuss the issue


 * There are pages and pages of discussion. The issue is not lack of discussion, but one user's refusal to edit cooperatively.  As for "cooperative edit warring", multiple editors have reverted Jo0doe's disruptions over the months.  Now it happens that I and another one are most active in doing so.  We do not communicate off wikipedia, we just, I guess, happen to be checking up on this page. Faustian (talk) 12:28, 6 October 2008 (UTC)
 * A kind of one -sided discussion see Proclamation_of_Ukrainian_statehood,_1941 talk page

Just two easy questions: “Some of its members, however, would continue to fight until 1956”.
 * Why you refuse to provide RS for “fighting until 1956” claim and engage in OR -


 * Plenty of referenced info in the body of the article: .Faustian (talk) 03:42, 7 October 2008 (UTC)


 * WP:HONEST - you misqoute sources (which given OUN undeground but no UPA) and groundless extend the dateJo0doe (talk) 08:00, 7 October 2008 (UTC)
 * The infobox states "Active 1943-1949 (official); fighting until 1956" and the article described, backed up by references, fighting until 1956. The only thing dishonest are your claims about others' dishonesty.Faustian (talk) 12:28, 7 October 2008 (UTC)
 * WP:Honest - at ref no UPA appeared - only OUN undeground Jo0doe (talk) 14:23, 7 October 2008 (UTC)


 * Why, despite the availability of academic RS, you intensively use in article POV SPS sources – namely Українська Повстанська Армія - Історія нескорених - Львів, 2007 and Krokhmaluk, Y. UPA Warfare in Ukraine New York Vantage Press 1972 page 242 (While – so many data on sole p.242 – which size?- 20x20 inches? Or which font size?)Jo0doe (talk) 16:01, 6 October 2008 (UTC)
 * This has been discussed already and no need to rediscuss because you don't like it.Faustian (talk) 03:42, 7 October 2008 (UTC)
 * So you change WP NPOV and WP:RS policy becouse you like it? WHat about p.242??? Jo0doe (talk) 08:00, 7 October 2008 (UTC)
 * I didn't add that page number. I suspect that someone else reformatted the refs, as a result giving all that info the same reference.  I reserve the right to fix others' messes only when I choose to do so.  Since it bothers you so much, why don't you go ahaead and fix it, by going back into the article's history, finding when that mistaken reformatting was made, and returuining the original page numbers?Faustian (talk) 12:28, 7 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Krokhmaluk, Y. UPA Warfare in Ukraine New York Vantage Press 1972 - is WP:SPS - that's why it irrelevant in articleJo0doe (talk) 14:23, 7 October 2008 (UTC)
 * While – you add this “242 page” - it's your "original" page number – see at article history – and talk page archive for end of January – February – when you numerous time claim as “referenced”. Or it’s a same issue of discourse as with Austrian officer and German official – do you remember this issue – when you try to put others in misconception by omitting important details???

and tried to present in WP doctored history based on SPS OR and UNDUE version of it originated from Bering Ltd and Associate Professor of History, Northeastern University while data Ukrainian Academy of Sciences ommited or misused Jo0doe (talk) 07:03, 6 October 2008 (UTC)


 * Selectively leaving out details (Yale and Harvard affiliation) of a source's background while being dishonest about Ukrainian Academy of Sciences info's use in the article. Part of the established pattern.Faustian (talk) 12:28, 6 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Bering Ltd has a Yale and Harvard affiliation??? Can't find prove for Yale and Harvard affiliation - both stated about Associate Professor of History, Northeastern University Jo0doe (talk) 16:01, 6 October 2008 (UTC)


 * Discussed about, oh, 20 times perhaps in the UPA talk pages? Links provided etc.  If you can't "find it" there, good luck determining what is and is not a RS and quoting properly from Reliable sources that you do find.Faustian (talk) 03:42, 7 October 2008 (UTC)
 * For Bering LTD?? - while for Associate Professor of History, Northeastern University  only his CV - while Yale and Harvard gives him an Associate Professor of History, Northeastern UniversityJo0doe (talk) 08:00, 7 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Thanks for showing your unwillingness to acknowledge the facts and links that have already been provided perhaps 20 times already. Or is it dishonesty?Faustian (talk) 12:28, 7 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Which links you are talken about - you always spoke about CV but failed to provide any ref from allegedly affilated institutionJo0doe (talk) 14:23, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

While Specific Editor swiftly forgot recommendation:
 * Where there is some controversy, we should also state who advances the viewpoints we describe. []


 * Depends on how "controversy" is defined. Just because Jo0doe doesn't like it, doesn't make it controversial.Faustian (talk) 12:28, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

an example - Subtelny's 1988 edition, page 474, first paragraph: "Compared to other underground movements in Nazi-occupied Europe, the UPA was unique in that it had practically no foreign support. Its growth and strength were, therefore, an indication of the very considerable popular support it enjoyed among most Ukrainians." The quote you provided is on page 476.Faustian (talk) 15:33, 26 February 2008 (UTC) In article it presented as an Universe sought - Among the anti-Nazi resistance movements it was unique in that it had no significant foreign support. Its growth and strength was a reflection of the popularity it enjoyed among the people of Western Ukrain
 * CLEAR OR


 * No, because Subtelny was writing about Western Ukraine and Ukrainians in Western Ukraine.
 * Thank you for your OR. Could you prove what most Ukrainians its Ukrainians in Western Ukraine by Subtelnyy?.Jo0doe (talk) 08:00, 7 October 2008 (UTC)
 * If you read the chapter it will be clear to you. Or do you not have the book?Faustian (talk) 12:28, 7 October 2008 (UTC)


 * Can't find similar wording in 2000 editionJo0doe (talk) 14:35, 7 October 2008 (UTC)


 * You cheat visitors through OR Jo0doe (talk) 08:01, 7 October 2008 (UTC)
 * This claim by the same person who claimed I was "hoaxing" because I mistakenly used the date 1972 rather than 1973 for a reference.Faustian (talk) 12:28, 7 October 2008 (UTC)
 * WP:Honest – you backed up your OR with WP:SPS propagandistic brochure which you does not have at time of editing – Mikivka and Black Forest trace still can be found at article – together with p.242 . While if we look at ARFC archive page – it’s easy to find what editor now swearing in accidental mistake in themselves does not believe in existence of book published in 1973 in Vantage press despite more then year promoting especially book published in 1973 in Vantage press as reliable source– what a glaring bad faith exampleJo0doe (talk) 14:35, 7 October 2008 (UTC)


 * And why Actually peoples of Western Ukraine limited only to Ukrainians??? As far as I know UPA has not same success with Poles at General Government as it have at General Berzirk Wolhynien-Podolien Or Subtelnyy suppose what General Government  as PolesFrei Territory???  Jo0doe (talk) 08:13, 7 October 2008 (UTC)
 * The real question is, why do you insist on putting a information into the article that you believe to be false. I assume you are just trying to discredit Subtleny.  Placing (what you believe) to be false info into an article for that purpose shows that you edit in bad faith.Faustian (talk) 03:42, 7 October 2008 (UTC)
 * The real question why you engage in OR and WP:SYN for a long time without any difficulties. As regards your question - I simply follow the (thank you for your Subtelnyy 1988 citation)

and avoid OR Jo0doe (talk) 08:13, 7 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Where there is some controversy, we should also state who advances the viewpoints we describe.


 * You didn't answer the question. So let's be clear: do you or do you not believe that UPA enjoyed popularity among most Ukrainians?  If no, it is clear that you are playing games with an article's lead for your own personal purposes.Faustian (talk) 12:28, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

And continue to cheat visitors with OR per WP:SYN constructions like –
 * WP is not based on pesonal believe - it's called POV and OR here. Please avoid POV and OR And also - please use 2000 edition of Subtelnyy - which have not such outdated claims. Thnak you It'will be avoid this specific issueJo0doe (talk) 14:23, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

Areas of UPA activity were depopulated, the estimates on numbers vary, officially Soviet archives state that between 1944 and 1952 a total of 182,543 people while other sources indicate the number may have been as high as to 500,000.


 * You forgot to include the separate reference for each figure in the article, so no synthesis. Only your dishonesty.Faustian (talk) 03:42, 7 October 2008 (UTC)


 * Text is clear WP:SYN as far as other sources (interesting but given only ONE source provided data for 1944-1947)

And
 * Can you comprehand the difference beween 1944 and 1952 and 1944 and 1947Jo0doe (talk) 08:00, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

According to one retired MVD major, by 1948 ideologically we had the support of most of the population. The Soviets skillfully exploited Polish-Ukrainian ethnic friction by recruitiing Poles as informants.

Swiftly mixing different self-contradicting sources (without mentioned it clear in article) and information related to a different time and territory scope. Jo0doe (talk) 08:44, 6 October 2008 (UTC)


 * While in General I try to follow the recommendation - to state who advances the viewpoints  and try to follow WP:RS and WP:Undue policy while user prefer to engage in hidden WP:OR per WP:SYN. It’s really sad.Jo0doe (talk) 08:32, 7 October 2008 (UTC)
 * I think that trolling articles is really sad, but apparently it's tolerated.Faustian (talk) 12:28, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

Makivka and Black Forest Jo0doe (talk) 14:23, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

User page vandalism - repeated
See this staff -  I kindly ask you to protect me from this repeated vandal actions.Jo0doe (talk) 10:14, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

Hello - a request
Hello, I have a request to ask of you. There is one editor on the |Holodomor talk page] who seems to be disrupting the discussion for no reason, and, unfortunately, often in an entirely incomprehensible way. This editor has added tens of kilobytes of pontifications, some of which are just personal opinions on on-line articles (granted, those articles were Holodomor-related).

Their most recent comment was to dismiss an article in the Encyclopedia Britannica as a POV "propagandistic statement".

I have asked this editor many times to calm down, and there is actually an entire section on the talk page called "Editors who are very weak in English" due to this editor's repeated disruptions. Could you please have a word with this editor, and ask her/him to tone down the rhetoric? Thank you, Horlo (talk) 08:31, 8 October 2008 (UTC) Hello, sorry, I seem to have given you a bad link there - here's the correct one to the talk page []. Sorry, Horlo (talk) 08:51, 8 October 2008 (UTC) While section Editors who are very weak in English appeared in almost all edited by me article were appeared "unwanted" info such as Nazi collaboration or hoax inserted in WP - it's clear personal attackJo0doe (talk) 15:26, 8 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Not recent actually while I've no comment to editor which limited his/her activity to trolling  and bad faith editing - I assume such also as removal tags from article after some time passed - see Nahtigal, Holdomor Denial, Jo0doe (talk) 15:24, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

Thanks, Horlo (talk) 00:59, 13 October 2008 (UTC)

UPA
Recent talks



And like junk mail in the inbox, disruptions will continue to be removed.Faustian (talk) 11:49, 8 October 2008 (UTC) Still sole author protect OR, hoaxes and POV. Which actions you propose to doJo0doe (talk) 15:30, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

Incivility
Editor which nominated themselves as sole owner of UPA article engaged in incivility. 
 * That's what the troll says. The only disruptor routinely reverted (not only be me) is you, and only when your edits are disruptive. So disrupt away - and your disruptions will be promptly removed as usual. Faustian (talk) 03:05, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

He/she prevent other editors effort to made a WP a reliable source – for my edits it happened immediately, while for other he/she wait some time and again modify the article text to preferred by “owner” version. Please advice a solution Jo0doe (talk) 07:41, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

Dekanozov
Could you please move-protect Vladimir Dekanozov (and warn DonaldDuck)? The move-warring is ridiculous. I have never seen him be called Dekanozishvili, 0 Google hits in English and in Russian. BTW, ru:Деканозишвили, Владимир Георгиевич needs to be fixed as well (thanks to DonaldDuck again). Colchicum (talk) 18:20, 9 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Done. Alex Bakharev (talk) 23:05, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

Neglected, but important
Please pay attention to 2008 Russian financial crisis, currently a battlefield between those who "feel sunny" and those who don't. Colchicum (talk) 22:47, 10 October 2008 (UTC)
 * I agree that the article is important and needs to be improved. I have added it to my watchlist. From the first glance FeelsSunny contributions look like adding many fact to the facts that are of a general common knowledge (like that Russian economy is heavily dependent upon oil exports, etc.). We might ignore them as trolling but I think it will be easier just to find reliable sources for this (would Startfor being sufficient?). We need a free picture showing the Russian stock indexes vs time superimposed with some international indexes (DowJ, S&P) and the oil price. On the time scale we have to put the major events: Putin's Mechel speech, South-Ossetia War, announcement of the stabilization measures, etc. Alex Bakharev (talk) 01:47, 11 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Do you know why Categories: Companies listed on the Russian Trading System | Companies listed on the Moscow Interbank Currency Exchange | Companies listed on the London Stock Exchange | Companies listed on NASDAQ appear at the bottom? Colchicum (talk) 13:22, 12 October 2008 (UTC)
 * The categories seem to be transcluded together with some protected ticker symbol templates. Colchicum (talk) 13:52, 12 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Exactly, I have removed the cats from there Alex Bakharev (talk) 14:06, 12 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Actually, can I ask that the cats be restored? The templates are the principal way in which categories such as Category:Companies listed on the London Stock Exchange are populated. Some sister templates (such as Template:Lse2) exist so as to provide the same function without transcluding the category. Gr1st (talk) 17:59, 12 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Done Alex Bakharev (talk) 23:38, 12 October 2008 (UTC)

Behgjet Pacolli
Could you please sort out the mess and semi-protect the article? A COI is obviously there. Colchicum (talk) 15:23, 17 October 2008 (UTC)
 * I have semiprotected article to limit sockpuppeting there. Alex Bakharev (talk) 00:21, 18 October 2008 (UTC)

User talk:Bukhari
User talk:Bukhari is requesting an unblock, proclaiming their innocence from sockpuppetry. It would be very helpful if you could post some diffs from both the first account and from this second account that show the connection between the two. As admins review the unblock request, such diffs would make it easier for us to act intelligently on his request. Thanks! --Jayron32. talk . contribs 19:46, 21 October 2008 (UTC)
 * I have answered on the Bukhari's talk page. In fact I was forwarded by a checkuser result from User:Yellowmonkey Alex Bakharev (talk) 00:56, 22 October 2008 (UTC)

Bukhari
For socking it is often a good plan to indef all but one account. The main account can be blocked for one or two weeks to deter repeats. This user has behaved badly, but as a practical matter they can start a new account and continue behaving badly. It may be more beneficial for us and for them to shorten the indef block to a fixed interval, and then watch the account. Fresh editing helps prevent stale checkuser results. If they resume bad behavior it is hardly any trouble to reblock them. Would you be willing to change the block interval to one to two weeks, including "time served"? Jehochman Talk 11:26, 22 October 2008 (UTC)
 * I have reduced the block to one month. I think it is fair: it is not the first time the user was caught on abusive blocking, and he has used the multiple accounts quite abusively Alex Bakharev (talk) 01:02, 23 October 2008 (UTC)

Jo0doeism
A cooperative of editors implement new term - Jo0doeism 









Would it be possible to protect WP for some time from uncivil editor engaged in blanking and “doctoring” history to preserve WP neutrality. Thank you Jo0doe (talk) 07:36, 23 October 2008 (UTC)


 * Well, I admire his chutzpah. I'd like to remind you that Jo0doe (talk)was warned by you to edit cooperatively:  .  He is now back to his old M.O., making large scale changes to the article with no consensus (for example, here:  and engaging in a one-sided revert war with several editors.  Looking at the revision history:, we see him reverting the contributions of me, Bandurist, Tavrian, Bobanni, Ostap R, and Kuban Kazak.  You specifically warned him :


 * "Jo0doe, Wikipedia is a cooperative work, not a personal blog. I have an immense respect for your knowledge but you have to find a way to work cooperatively with fellow wikipedians. Assumptions of bad faith, sterile edit warring, incivility is not the method to push your views into the article. In fact if your opponents were a little bit less noble they could easily arrange a permanent block for you just on the pattern of behavior. Please, if you feel that something is not right try to politely point out the problems on the talk page. If you feel the editors of an article are biased try to get neutral opinions via an article WP:RFC or other WP:DR...Consider it is a last warning, next time I would have to use my block button. Thanks for understanding"


 * At what point can he be blocked, if not in general than at least on this article?Faustian (talk) 12:40, 23 October 2008 (UTC)
 * You forgot to mention own effort - is't? So what about source for your repeatedly 1956 end of UPA - ? even Toronto source against Makivka and Black forest inventors  So a better defence for own OR (listed above at talk page) is offence - is't--Jo0doe (talk) 14:41, 23 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Moreover see WP:NPOV for more datails--Jo0doe (talk) 14:42, 23 October 2008 (UTC)

Putting others in misconception is a perfect side of sole WP:editor
 * mixing, omit and distort facts and data and gives a wrong emphasis is an masterpiece of art -  []

It’s achieving by a vary simple but durable way – if nominate an Abwehr Major General Erwin Von Lahausen, Abwehr Division I Head as “Austrian officer” forgot to note what it happened in Hitler special train were actually Hitler present. And a cherish point – to stress the reliability of data – “conversations between German officials recalled six years after the conversation”. So the reader easily forgot what here is spoken not about hearing at Pip-Creek County court but about International Military Tribunal Trails on Major War Criminals. So same story here above and after. Just another example – if we’ve seen at recent article history – - (remove usual trash)  Perfect example of OR per WP:SYN

As regards to Taurian edits – it’s actually not me who revert his edits – While I simple follow his concern as WP recommends – remove hoax from infoukes – namely O14-USSR

- rv vandalism A very similar sole “notable contribution” from Bobbani  While again we forgot about notable contributors 90.35.90.55, 94.178.15.190 69.183.252.140– but again same stile as cooperators –
 * As regards to Bandurist “contribution” – all of then were similar to mentioned at the top of topic.
 * 

So remains Kuban kazak – but he never revert my edits nor I’m his.


 * The version that he left behind is quite different from yours: . And you changed the date from 1956 (his version) to your personal favorite of 1949 in the beginning.Faustian (talk) 02:44, 24 October 2008 (UTC)
 * I was never

together with rest different sources--Jo0doe (talk) 06:46, 24 October 2008 (UTC) So again sole editor breach most of cornerstone WP rules (WP:NOR, WP:NPOV, WP:V etc.) and remain a “victim”. Indeed a very similar story with Nazi collaborators at North-America they also mostly represented themselves as “Regime-victims” and forgot to note about actual own “bravery” with Poles, Jews and Ukrainians.


 * Comparing me as you implictly do to "Nazi collaborators" is rather disgusting. But I guess it's tolerated.Faustian (talk) 02:44, 24 October 2008 (UTC)


 * So may be better to look at facts instead of myths? Jo0doe (talk) 15:36, 23 October 2008 (UTC)

(Personal attack removed) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 90.35.27.3 (talk) 18:49, 23 October 2008 (UTC)

Talk:Saint Petersburg
Your opinion is needed. Colchicum (talk) 14:20, 23 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Done Alex Bakharev (talk) 23:31, 23 October 2008 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free media (Image:Gorynin putin.jpg)
Thanks for uploading Image:Gorynin putin.jpg. The media description page currently specifies that it is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, it is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the media was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that media for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that all non-free media not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. BJBot (talk) 05:12, 24 October 2008 (UTC)

How many WP:Rules can be broken by sole editor?
In addition to mentioned above WP:DE and WP:BAD FAITH a breaching WP:NOR, WP:NPOV, WP:HONEST WP:CIVILITY here we’ve an WP:BLP issue – []. For how long this specific author can cheat WP visitors and editors by manipulating with texts and facts – as for example

As for Koch, remember that you you quoted selectively from the work by the Ukrainian Academy of Science. As I observed earlier: The source which you provided - an excellent one btw, your misuse of it notwithstanding - described heavy fighting between UPA. You took one quote from that chapter, from page 189, in which Koch stated in November 13th that there was little activity from UPA. From the same source, page 187, mentioned that the Germans were heavily attacking UPA with planes and tanks. On 188, it stated that in fall 1943 UPA had 47 battles with the Hitlerites and 125 incidents with self-defence bush groups. During these conflcits in Fall 1943, UPA lost 414 men while the Germans lost 1500 soldiers. Page 188 also stated that the Germans failed to destroy UPA and that indeed its numbers continued to grow. However, they did succeed in bringing down UPA's activity level vs. the Germans. Last paragraph of page 188 stated that both Germans and UPA saw no need to continue the fight against each other, and UPA's actions against the Germans largely ceased. That's the full story. You just pulled a quote out of context, that in November 1943 the Ukrainians were quiet. It's a rather dishonest use of a source, don't you think?Faustian (talk) 20:46, 26 December 2007 (UTC)


 * Isn’t look like truth and glaring examples of quoted selectively?!!
 * Almost! If not a tiny details for this “full story”.
 * It’s scientific work – and there a conclusion located at the last page of each chapters –page 199 – “In general OUN and UPA actions on anti-German front do not play an important role in liberation of Ukrainian territory from Germans occupants.” If all citation “about heavy fighting between UPA and Germans” clearly noted at work as originated from L.Shankovskyy publication which already appeared at article before - An “excellent”  idea to prove claims of former UPA sergeant through it’s own publication clearly noted as such in other publication. Moreover – if we scroll up and down  we can find a vary similar conclusions – “strategy of OUN and UPA was directed to avoid active resistance to the Germans oppressors”.  --Jo0doe (talk) 16:13, 24 October 2008 (UTC)


 * Nice example of selectively quoting from the conclusion. The full story, on page 199, second-last paragraph:


 * "The military actions of UPA on the anti-German front did not have a strategic importance and did not influence the struggle between Germany and the USSR, and only limited the actions of the German occupational administration in the exploitation of Volyn and Polissia, where was created the material basis for the Ukrainian independence movement."


 * The various anti-German battles described above do not contradict this. Indeed, the source itself mentions Shankovsky but does not criticize him nor his info; it states it matter-of-factly without any editorialization.  Indeed, the only description of Shankowski in this chapter is as a "well-known historian." (page 187).  All this critique and criticism of him is your OR - it doesn't reflect the source cited.


 * But there I go - I've already discussed this several times. You just keep repeating your same old arguments, keep on continuing your one-man stale edit-warring against everyone else, because you are allowed to do so.  And I and others will just continue to revert your disruptive edits, just as if we're cleaning junk mail from an e-mail inbox.  Such is the state of Wikipedia.Faustian (talk) 03:45, 25 October 2008 (UTC)

UPA was anti-Soviet too, you know (more so thabn anti-German) so of course it didn';t play much of a role in the lioberation (return of Soviet rule) of western Ukraine. Indeed, when the Soviets approached, it switched its struggle to one against the Soviets.


 * But thanks for postin the example of your own dishonest use of the source.Faustian (talk) 17:20, 24 October 2008 (UTC)

A exact citation
 * "The military actions of UPA on the anti-German front did not have a strategic importance and did not influence the struggle between Germany and the USSR, and only limited the actions of the German occupational administration in the economical exploitation of Volyn and Polissia, where was created the material basis for the Ukrainian independence movement."

.... In general OUN and UPA actions on anti-German front do not play an important role in liberation of Ukrainian territory from Germans occupants Again an "Austrian officer" habit to twist and distort - but again - I've not remove Shankovskyy I simply follow the reccomendation and indicate in article text the origin of claim. While Authors afraid about such - isn't strange. In article appeared one more "contributor"  - does WP has a limitation on "ethnicity" for edtors of specific article?--Jo0doe (talk) 08:22, 25 October 2008 (UTC)


 * Actually as the quote at the top shows, you "conveniently" forgot Shankovsky and represented one piece of information. Then you editorialize him as you do other RS you don't like.  So information sourced from historians from top Western Universities becomes qualified by you as "according to Ukrainian diaspora historians", info from the Institutre of History of Ukrainian Academy of Sciences, when sourced from Shankovsky, becomes "according to UPA veteran" (or somethinglike that), even though the work of the Institute itself only describes Shankovsky in that passage as a "well-known historian", etc.  In other words, the usual disruptions that just get reverted by the wikipedia community as you engage in your one-man struggle against everyone else.Faustian (talk)


 * Again allegedly calims –“Then you editorialize him as you do other RS you don't like” “according to Ukrainian diaspora historians” etc – no such wording exist at recently reverted version. As regards Shankovskyy - History of Ukrainian Army  (Історія українського війська) | location =  Winnipeg | year = 1953 – it’s well known at the time he made such publication what he was only a former  sergeant in UPA which retreat together with Nazi and he does not produce any other  History of Ukrainian Army  after that – so “former UPA officer L. Shankovskyy” is correct sentence and I can’t see any “editorialize”. It’s really sad what specific editor limit “WP community” to cooperative of editors of similar origin (as far as I remember someone spoke about family myth   about “father refuse to join UPA”). WP article does not required to by drawn from only minority view  Jo0doe (talk) 09:27, 26 October 2008 (UTC)


 * The source itslf did not indicate "former UPA officer etc." in that passage - it merely said well-known historian. So you are editorialising.  If you like, we can be consistant and add "according to former ideologue of the Ukrainian Communist party" in front of every reference to Kulchytski in the Famine article to complete th JoeDoesization of Ukrainian tiopics in wikipedia..  As for family stuff, it is irrelevent although the fact that you bring up the ethnic/family origin of sources you don't like as if it matters is indicative of the bankruptcy of your position.Faustian (talk) 02:19, 30 October 2008 (UTC)


 * As for "community of editors" does this Polish editor also belong to the same community: ?Faustian (talk) 02:28, 30 October 2008 (UTC)

Kolyvan and CNN
Hi Alex, you know I didn't want to go and revert your edit regarding this but surely if you'd think twice about it, you'd come to the same conclusion like me that it isn't exactly an encyclopedic fact that someone appears to be retarded at CNN. So I hope you'd reconsider the addition of yours. Thanks!--Termer (talk) 00:16, 25 October 2008 (UTC)


 * Hi, Termer. I agree that the fact is not very important and I would not fight tooth and nail to keep it in the article. On the other hand Wikipedia is not a paper encyclopaedia and some pieces of trivia are allowed there. I find a fact of CNN reporting to be referenced, true, entertaining and inoffensive as well as a good illustration to the effect of having many historical names of the old great city. Thus, I do not see a reason to remove the info Alex Bakharev (talk) 08:19, 25 October 2008 (UTC)


 * Sounds more like a fact about CNN rather than about the city itself really. Reporting some place with 2 parallel names having 2 different weather conditions at the same time is not bad at all as a joke I must admit. If you really think keeping such factual inaccuracies part of WP as trivia is a good idea, well, what do I know...--Termer (talk) 13:33, 25 October 2008 (UTC)

Remarks about what website does what to fix obvious user errors is usually WP:OR, and does not belong into an encyclopædic article. You wouldn't add to the article that "Interestingly, Wikipedia redirects Tallin to Tallinn", would you? ΔιγουρενΕμπρος! 14:02, 25 October 2008 (UTC)


 * Well in this case the information is referred to an independent source Delfi, so it is not an Original Research. Tallin redirected to Tallinn is certainly not notable. On the other hand, if Wikipedia for a long time had two separate articles on Tallin and Tallinn with different dates of founding the cities and if it was reported in independent press is would be probably notable enough for the inclusion. BTW I am 100% sure that CNN's "Kolyvan, Estonia" is referred to a Russian town, most probably Kolyvan, Novosibirsk Oblast. It is too cold there for the Baltics and the sunset/sundown times are too different from Estonia Alex Bakharev (talk) 22:36, 25 October 2008 (UTC)

Troll, clown... whats next
  Could you please stop personal attack of editor catched for hoaxing WP with OR.Thank you--Jo0doe (talk) 15:49, 27 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Says the guy who compared me and apparently the entire Ukrainian diaspora on this talk page to a Nazi collaborators: "'''Indeed a very similar story with Nazi collaborators at North-America they also mostly represented themselves as “Regime-victims” and forgot to note about actual own “bravery” with Poles, Jews and Ukrainians.

''' Very funny.Faustian (talk) 21:52, 27 October 2008 (UTC)

Role of experts
I posted it earlier to your talk page, but probably you did not notice since I posted it to the old thread. Just in case: I have written what I promised to write: meta:User:Yaroslav Blanter/Temp17--Yaroslav Blanter (talk) 15:34, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

Нехорошев
Группа участников "снесла" дату кончины учёного, требуя каких-то подтверждений. Уж и не знаю, что они имеют ввиду. Единственный из найденных его доступный портрет имеется на третьей ссылке русской версии текста, но я несведущ в авторских правах, как бы чего не нарушить. Aburov (talk) 20:11, 29 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Дату снесли в соответствии с правилами. Достаточно часто на Википедию приходят "шутники", которые добавляют дату смерти к статьям о живых людях. Иногда дату смерти добавляют по ошибке, из-за слухов. Поэтому действует жесткое правило - никаких дат смерти пока это не подтверждено независмыми источниками: некрологами, сообщениями на университетских сайтах, газетах и проч. Нехорошев достаточно известный человек, чтобы о нем напечатали некрологи и объявили на вебе (не только на русской вики) . Пока такой источник не представлен в статье дате смерти не место. Лучше покойный несколько часов побудет на Вики живым чем мы объявим на весь свет о смерти живого человека. Ссылку на картинку я не нашел - подскажите. Alex Bakharev (talk) 20:59, 29 October 2008 (UTC)
 * На страничке http://resptyn.mexmat.ru/history.htm#%CA%EE%EC%E0%ED%E4%E8%F0%FB_%E8_%EA%EE%EC%E8%F1%F1%E0%F0%FB_ имеется блок из восьми фотографий. В нём Николай Николаевич - в правом верхнем углу, весьма молодым. Aburov (talk) 07:06, 30 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Касаемо дат. По возвращении из Италии он вряд ли числился в штате мехмата, отчего на стенке некролог вывесили, а на официальном сайте - нет см. http://www.math.msu.ru/ С апреля он уже потерял зрение. Отпевали его в церкви, в Марьино, а похорнили в Подмосковье, за Шереметьевым, мой приятель был на похоронах. Aburov (talk) 07:45, 30 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Ммда. Нельзя все таки писать дату смерти без подтверждения какими-то проверяемыми источниками. Я час гуглил и ничего не нашел. Если Вы в Москве, то може подскажите вебмастеру матмеха или кафедры, что без некролога просто неприлично. Ну кто-то же должен что-то написать по этому случаю. С фотографией тоже непросто. Хотя и фотография и старая, но явно еще не общественное достояние (по новому закону общественное достояние это до 1942). Объявить, что это классическая фотография важная в биографии (и поэтому ее использование - добросовестное) - нет оснований. Может на какой-нибудь его книге на обложке фотография? Давайте подождем - наверняку у кого-нибудь есть любительская фотография, которую автор согласится пожертвовать с открытой лицензией. Такие дела Alex Bakharev (talk) 11:10, 30 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Уж если хочется какой-то нейтральности и объективности, то можно по-модераторски, т.е. не мне, написать либо вебмастеру мехмата, либо на его миланскую кафедру математики, спросить того же Antonio Giorgilli, чья публикация упоминается на страничке. Хотя я не уверен, что итальянцы в курсе дела, съехал он от них довольно давно.Aburov (talk) 19:57, 30 October 2008 (UTC)

Minor edit?
As a matter of trivial interest, is there a guideline (or a consensus) on whether a vandal reversion should or shouldn't be listed "minor"? I tend not to mark 'em minor, but I've done it occasionally & wondered if it mattered. (Y, I know, some people, me included, don't watchlist minors. Beside that.)  TREKphiler   hit me ♠  23:09, 29 October 2008 (UTC)
 * I usually do not mark vandal reversion minor for exactly the same reason. On the other hand many people tend to set "minor" flag to everything they edit. Do you have in mind any edit in particular? Alex Bakharev (talk) 23:20, 29 October 2008 (UTC)

Block you made
Pls see User_talk:Watchdogb and a note I made there.  — Rlevse</b> • Talk  • 01:40, 30 October 2008 (UTC)
 * I disagree because Watchdogb has a lot higher % of reverts than Editorofthewiki throughout his editing career. Secondly I think his latest edits violate WP:POINT. I only removed some murder categories where there is ambiguity between deliberate targeting and collateral damage through incompetent aim by military force or riots getting out of control. On the other hand, Watchdog blanked all these categories from incidents that were clearly deliberate. Planting a bomb in someone's house is not an accident. I have not removed the category for Tamil people who were lined up and shot in the back of the head, or hacked with machetes, because there is no doubt that they were deliberately killed. In Watchdog's case he blanked out bombs planted in passenger trains and planes purportedly by Tamil Tigers, which were clearly deliberate acts.  YellowMonkey  ( click here to choose Australia's next top model! ) 01:59, 30 October 2008 (UTC)


 * Alex's decision is fair and OK with me. <span style="font-family:Verdana,sans-serif"> — <b style="color:#060;">Rlevse</b> • Talk  • 10:10, 30 October 2008 (UTC)

I think you were wrong to block them, particular Editor of the wiki whatever the 3 rule says. They should have been warned about edit warring and asked to sort it out in rational discussion particularly over something so trivial. Editor of the wiki to my knowledge rarely if ever at all has reverted anybody and if he did so must have sincerely believed it justifiable. Good editors don't deserve to be treated as vandals and an altertative warning and discussion would have been far more appropriate in the circumstances. Dr. Blofeld (talk) 18:25, 30 October 2008 (UTC)

ANI
Hello,. This message is being sent to inform you that there currently is a discussion at Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. Toddst1 (talk) 21:17, 30 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)

AleNewArtBot rules
Salut Alex, and thank you very much for developing, it is very useful! I hacked together a crude version of parameters for anarchism-related articles at User:AlexNewArtBot/Anarchism, and I am wondering if you knew how they might be improved to give better results. Regards, the skomorokh  19:37, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

Privet (Hell0)
Здравствуйте, Алекс. Могли бы Вы помочь мне разобраться, что биография, взятая мною с моего же сайта - моя? Как я дожна доказать, что я это я?

Спасибо большое. Екатерина Московская. ekaterina@moscowskaya.com

Hi, Alex. You have recently reviewed the page of Yekaterina Moskovskaya. May I ask you to help me to understand that the biography you are deleting taken from my own website is mine? How should you I prove that I am is who I am?

Thank you.

Ekaterina Moskovskaya ekaterina@moscowskaya.com

Orphaned non-free media (Image:Errlogo.jpg)
Thanks for uploading Image:Errlogo.jpg. The media description page currently specifies that it is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, it is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the media was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that media for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that all non-free media not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. BJBot (talk) 05:27, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

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, 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, Requests for arbitration/Kuban Kazak-Hillock65/Workshop.

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

Impersonator?
Is an impersonator? Colchicum (talk) 14:37, 7 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Yes, she/he/it certainly is one. Thanks for the heads up Alex Bakharev (talk) 14:54, 7 November 2008 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free media (Image:Gradsky star of the fields.jpg)
Thanks for uploading Image:Gradsky star of the fields.jpg. The media description page currently specifies that it is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, it is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the media was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that media for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that all non-free media not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. BJBot (talk) 05:07, 8 November 2008 (UTC)

Troll, clown, Jdoesim and now accusation in OR
Editors which failed to find any AD REM arguments continue to engage in AD HOMINEM attack. In addition to troll and clown cooperative of editor now “show” my “OR” – Despite mine.

Look like simply don’t like to have a WP as reliable source. Mikolaj_Siwicki and students apocrypha much more liked – Could you please warn the editors about personal attack and to follow the user:Warofdreams recommendations – or  at least not to restrict to me of doing so. Thank you. Jo0doe (talk) 10:32, 10 November 2008 (UTC)

Discussion of topic ban
Since you contributed to the ANI discussion that led to this, you may wish to contribute to the topic ban discussion here: Administrators%27_noticeboard. Regards,  S HEFFIELD S TEEL TALK 21:15, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

Bot
Hi. I wonder why this log has not been updated lately. Would something like 50 /X/, /\n.*X/ 100 /\n.*X/ assign 100 points to X regardless of whether it is found in the lead or elsewhere? Colchicum (talk) 14:11, 15 November 2008 (UTC)


 * I do not know either. One of the reason might be if the total size of all the history of the log became to high. I have deleted the log to test this hypotheses. Another reason might be if the new log added on the day is too large (in many megabytes) or if there is no log (all articles give zero or negative points). The lead seeking routine is more complicated than this: it is seeking for the first paragraph that an image or template (infobox). Thus, the answer is certainly "not always". I am not sure that perl script would correctly identify the /\n.*X/ pattern. It might match the patterns on the line by line basis, it needs to be tested Alex Bakharev (talk) 01:16, 16 November 2008 (UTC)


 * The logfile for TestFeedLog is 2.8M long. Apparently Wikimedia software does not allow posting of so long texts in one go. I have posted the first couple of hundreds lines of the log manually. Let me know if you need more Alex Bakharev (talk) 23:28, 16 November 2008 (UTC)

article Holodomor vandalized
See recent changes - despite the refusal of such idea by group of editor at talk page [] Se recent POV propaganda pushing in the article created by same editorCauses_of_the_Holodomor. Thank you for you assistace to not USE WP for Soapboxing proposals - I hope you've read this stuffJo0doe (talk) 17:42, 15 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Тьфу. Regardless of your disputes, Golodomor in quotation marks and strawman arguments -- what a disgrace. May the author of that message burn in hell. The letter, by the way, doesn't qualify as WP:RS for anything except Medvedev's own beliefs. Colchicum (talk) 18:03, 15 November 2008 (UTC)


 * Modern Russian language have not word "holodomor"- so per grammar rules quotation marks is relevant - see historian concern about recent "effort"  with figures. Also note this work -  - it's explain a consern not to be used forJo0doe (talk) 10:36, 19 November 2008 (UTC)
 * I have answered on Talk:Holodomor. I do not think splitting content is a vandalism and I would prefer not to use this term. It still can be a bad editorial decision but it is clearily not a vandalism Alex Bakharev (talk) 09:58, 16 November 2008 (UTC)

User:Чръный человек
This user has moved Tam, de nas nema to Там, де нас нема. Can you please move it back to Latin letters. And I hope he will stop doing this, otherwise we will soon have Москва or Санкт-Петербург. Närking (talk) 16:46, 16 November 2008 (UTC)
 * fixed Alex Bakharev (talk) 20:21, 16 November 2008 (UTC)

WP:Civility
Oops he/she did it again - Ad hominem as it... Jo0doe (talk) 07:08, 19 November 2008 (UTC)

WikiProject Cambodia
Dear Alex,

Could you possibly help to set up a search by your splendid bot for new articles that should be tagged under the Cambodia wikiproject? I have read the Bot's instructions - which gave me a headache - and I seriously doubt that I would get it right without many attempts. WikiProject Cambodia/New articles would be a suitable location for the log page. Untagged articles with Cambodia in the lead would be a fine place to start. I'm happy to learn how to modify the rules after it is set up - but the initial work, I fear is beyond me. Cheers, Paxse (talk) 15:19, 20 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Thank you very much! You sir, and your Bot, are both Princes among men (and Bots), Paxse (talk) 14:42, 25 November 2008 (UTC)

Signpost updated for November 17, 2008 and before.
Because the Signpost hasn't been sent in a while, to save space, I've condensed all seven issues that were not sent into this archive. Only the three issues from November are below.

You are receiving this message because you have signed up for the Signpost spamlist. If you wish to stop receiving these messages, simply remove your name from the list. Ralbot (talk) 10:13, 23 November 2008 (UTC)

please explain
Just for fun, I ran my name on a Media Wiki User Search.

The 14 listed results led me to wonder what YOU were.

Upon discovery of the bot, I then clicked the New articles to see its relationship to the federal of one search result, but came to a dead-end because nothing relevant seemed listed under categories politics, regional, or history.

Returning for further understanding of whatever you are doing, I encounted the appearance of a regional subsection for Americas in the NewArtbot page and now assume that the federal of my search results is contained therein.

The reason for this posting is: Would it not be advisable to have an Americas listing on the New articles subpage?

Or at least some sort of explanation somewhere, explaining why my name appears 14 times in the Media Wiki User Search in various references stemming from California to Medicine&mdash;although the reference seems to relate to a now-defunct (and deleted) copyediting rough draft of another User's article on a modern-day actor? Anne Teedham (talk) 15:08, 24 November 2008 (UTC)


 * Well, the User:AlexNewArtBot works by reading new articles that appeared in a day and filtering them in a way to recognize new articles relevant to specific projects. Then people who are interested in a particular topic can read the article, enjoy it, fix it, nominate to WP:DYK, delete hoaxes, etc. The feeds are created by different users, sometimes then they make mistakes we have a number of false positive and false negatives there. The set of rules [] were created by User:Colchicum, he is quite experienced in this work creating more such feeds than me. I guess he is the best person to ask why your article was apparently wrongly identified as of the US Federal topic. If you concern about privacy violations I guess you can manually delete the lines related to your article from the bot archives. I do not see any harm in this Alex Bakharev (talk) 00:09, 25 November 2008 (UTC)
 * I am not sure I understand the problem. The bot lists the authors (including Anne Teedham) along with the pages it picks up, that's how it works. This particular case has something to do with the page Aaron Eckhart/Redraft, which has been deleted, so I have no idea what it was about. False positives could happen, especially if the page in question was very long (I don't know). Colchicum (talk) 00:39, 25 November 2008 (UTC)
 * I can restore the Aaron Eckhart/Redraft if you need it for debugging (it looks very similar to the main Aaron Eckhart) but I am not sure it is worth the effort. BTW I have noticed that a few active feeds are not shown on the User:AlexNewArtBot, I think it is better fix at some stage. Also maybe it is worth to check if all the feeds are still useful, e.g. I am not sure that somebody uses Vlad Fedorov's feeds Alex Bakharev (talk) 11:49, 25 November 2008 (UTC)

Piotrus 2 discussion.
I come back to Wikipedia to find out that people are suggesting to ban me because I once had a user box (or template or whatever) saying that I was a paid member of the "KGB internet trolls". Contrary to what Biophys wrote or what you may believe, that was not in defence of Vlad fedorov (look at this, yes, those are both by me and yes, the "Alex" there is you) but in defence of his and other people's EDITS (never confuse the person with the edits) at an article where Biophys tried to keep the word KGB in for present-day Russia (his trick at vaious AfDs and other fora was and is always to claim that the KGB of ocurse still exits, in Belarus). I do not know for sure of course whether Petri Krohn had 100% the same opinion, but I am sure he would never have thought of actually claiming he was an FSB (note the difference) informer. Have a look at the "syntax" of the caption as it was on my user page (before some Westerner tried to put some reason in Biophys' article and I decided to kill the drama on this article): "This user is a paid member of the KGB Internet troll squad". Do you see the separate link to KGB?

Another archive of Vlad fedorov's seems to suggest that the older version of the internet trolls article (the one that Petri and I linked to at the time) are actually no longer available on Wikipedia. Shame really.

Expect an e-mail from me on this in the near future. Shalom.--Paul Pieniezny (talk) 11:26, 25 November 2008 (UTC)


 * Helaba, many people use the acronym KGB for its post-Soviet heirs including South Ossetian and Belarusian KGBs. Nobody is going to ban people for the old jokes but all the jokes are good while they are funny. Anyway I have received no emails yet Alex Bakharev (talk) 11:42, 25 November 2008 (UTC)

Images
Could you please rename this to make the file from Commons visible here? Colchicum (talk) 22:58, 25 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Done Alex Bakharev (talk) 23:58, 25 November 2008 (UTC)

Could you help to Comprehend
I''ve just recieving an really intresting note from - as far as I can see - here is something personal [] or may be it's a result of  or may be [this http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Holodomor#A_missed_section]- I don't know - so actually could you please explain about largely of violations of WP:TALK and WP:SOAPBOX.
 * May be also it caused by personal opinion influence  . But as far as I know admins should foster NPOV rather then use own rights to prosecute others. Thank you in adviceJo0doe (talk) 17:31, 27 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Well, this certainly comes to mind: . Anyways, Jo0doe certainly been warned about his abusive behavior in the past.Faustian (talk) 20:28, 27 November 2008 (UTC)

Prior to any sanctions being imposed, the editor in question shall be given a warning with a link to this decision by an uninvolved administrator; and, where appropriate, should be counseled on specific steps that he or she can take to improve his or her editing in accordance with relevant policies and guidelines. Hardly to nominate user:Moreschi as uninvolved administrator after a "Conquest conclusion" and rest action against other editors conserns. Indeed intresting to see above editor comments after while cathegory Holodomor should be reported as WP:Fringe - per indeed intresting Himka comment : Frequently diaspora authors urge fellow Ukrainians to follow the example of the Jews and produce a more detailed, more convincing narrative of their own holocaust. So currently we've in WP a mirrored to "Ukrainian -Holocaust" and "Ukrainian-Genocide" If adopt a same practice UN can be also listed - becouse in 2003 it denied to recognize Famine-1933 as Genocide - becouse out of 192 United_Nations_member_states only 37 support the joint statement with politically motivated numbers of victimsJo0doe (talk) 21:26, 27 November 2008 (UTC)  Indeed interesting reading about the “leading place” of the Holodomor in the “new Ukrainian nation identity formation”. See “THE HARRIMAN REVIEW By Frank E. Sysyn The Famine of 1932-33 in the Discussion of Russian-Ukrainian Relations” – Kuchma regime and the oligarchs in the late 1990s, the Famine issue could be more readily embraced by the government, even if only as a way of dealing with the patriotic segment of the Ukrainian electorate. Hence the presidential ukaz on the Famine in 2002 opened the way for greater attention to the Famine in 2003 as part of presidential political tactics. While I also hope you should read Document № 232 from
 * Denial_of_the_Holodomor consist from  list of persons which actually not denied the existsnce of famine 1932-33 itself - they denied a "famine-Genocide" version from Volkisher Beobachter and after.
 * As far as I remember “starved children look the same” – while how can be assessed practice of posing starved Russians and Kalmyks as “Ukrainians starved by Russians” – see here a numerous examples
 * такое угрожающее положение объясняется диким отношением взрослых к детям and
 * Таким образом, различными видами помощи охвачено 389 тыс. 700 человек, не охвачено около 100 тыс. человек

And Document № 219 about total aid only from Peoples Commisariate of Health see bloody communists order Doc 218 Городской партийный комитет вновь напоминает, что из продовольственной ссуды в первую очередь давать тяжелобольным и предупреждает, что если на почве голода будет хотя бы один смертный случай в Вашем селе, безусловно руководящий состав будет исключен из партии и отдан под суд.

Does it’s look like “Ukrainian- Holocaust” and "communist regime starved Ukrainians" ? DYK that Николай Дмитриевич Стражеско involved in the famine victims healing  ?
 * Kuchma -Reigan project for WP???Jo0doe (talk) 22:25, 27 November 2008 (UTC)


 * You're now violating the conditions for not being blocked.Faustian (talk) 23:25, 27 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Which one conditions - could you give me a link to conditions? While as far as I comprehend, editor which nominate other editor as clown and trolls becouse he/she unable to provide AD REM arguments on editor's data and text hardly to be a "desicion making party" in regards "conditions"Jo0doe (talk) 06:39, 28 November 2008 (UTC)
 * You compare others to Nazi collaborators, and then complain about being called a troll or a clown. Funny. But I'll stop clowning around with you now, and let you do so yourself.Faustian (talk) 06:58, 28 November 2008 (UTC)


 * Just would like to point out what editor repeatedly refuse to provide a diff were I "compare others to Nazi collaborators" - inserting of Nazi collaborators propaganda like listed here and  never intended to "comparing others  to Nazi collaborators" it's just noted about misuse the Nazi propagana outside of Nazi propaganda article itself. Like Vinnitsa MassacreThank you.Jo0doe (talk) 10:49, 28 November 2008 (UTC)


 * Oops. Your words :  "Indeed a very similar story with Nazi collaborators at North-America they also mostly represented themselves as “Regime-victims” and forgot to note about actual own “bravery” with Poles, Jews and Ukrainians.Faustian (talk) 15:21, 28 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Just another "Citing Koch", "Austrian officer" example you again misrepresent what actually was meaned in the sentece - exactly as with Subtelnyy 1944-47 5000000 - could you please provide a diff were I comparing others to Nazi collaborators. Thank youJo0doe (talk) 16:55, 28 November 2008 (UTC)


 * You forgot to post the link that shows you misusing the Koch quote. Here it is:, the fourth bullet.Faustian (talk) 20:38, 28 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Again you forgot that "misusing" was explained above at talk page   so you intend to misrepresent of the Ukrainian National Academy of Science is clearly visible work you claim

while scholars noted about repeatedly disregards other editors' explanations for their edits.
 * which claimed that indeed UPA did not focus its efforts on front-line German troops and
 * General strategy was not to "play against Germans"
 * Any "bullets" left? What about date of UPA end? What about your claim about my OR at archives? You continuosly and deliberately pose other editor input in twisted and distorted way - it's clear bad faith intend - and explained in WP:DE Cannot satisfy Wikipedia:Verifiability; fails to cite sources, cites unencyclopedic sources, misrepresents reliable sources, or manufactures original research, repeatedly disregards other editors' questions or requests for explanations concerning edits or objections to edits;
 * Campaign to drive away productive contributors: act in spite of policies and guidelines such as Civility,No personal attacks, Ownership of articles, engage in sockpuppetry/meatpuppetry, etc. on a low level that might not exhaust the general community's patience, but that operates toward an end of exhausting the patience of productive rules-abiding editors on certain articles. See - no effort about Ukrainian_People%27s_Revolutionary_Army - may be becouse it's not OUN-B formationJo0doe (talk) 09:51, 29 November 2008 (UTC)

Accusations
Now I am being accused of using sockpuppets and meatpuppets:. Any consequence for such an action?Faustian (talk) 23:05, 28 November 2008 (UTC)
 * You missed a word "probably" - while history of article edits - a self evident - IP and editors which comes only to revert my referenced through RS informationJo0doe (talk) 09:25, 29 November 2008 (UTC)

Someone outed him(her?)self accidentally
And now for something completely different. A Belgian minister went with his entourage to New York (knowing that the special UN meeting they were to attend had been postponed at the lastr minute), allegedly got himself very drunk, allegedly so drunk that he did not notice that the barmaid understood the allegedly rowdy songs he was singing, and when he was back in Belgium, found out his escapade was announced on a blog, phoned the bar owner who fired the bar maid. When questioned in Parliament, he recognized that a collaborator had phoned the bar owner (he had denied that for some days), called the whole thing a non-event but still said he would enquire to what extent "he may take legal action to protect myself and my integrity". (that is the translation of the last full sentence in Dutch at )

Now, as you probably guess, some are putting in the story at this minister's article on English Wikipedia, and others are deleting it on POV or BLP. That would be no problem, but one probably Belgian user edited the article when not logged in, and when logged in, accused an unconnected editor of reverting him, thereby outing himself - obviously not knowing what he was doing.

Is there a way of permanently deleting the edits that identify the author (that would be the trhread he started on the talk page of the uninvolved guy, the thread he started and deleted on the article talk page and the thread on Otarie's talk page started by the uninvolved user)? I thought there was. Or has Wikipedia's policy changed to the point that "anonymous" IP's are not to be protected against legal implications? Personally, I think the chances that the outed person gets sued is almost infinitesimal. But iIf he wants these things completely deleted and it is possible in this case, what is the procedure?--Paul Pieniezny (talk) 18:52, 29 November 2008 (UTC)


 * Paul, I and any admin can delete specific versions of articles. The revisions are still visible to all administrators. The revisions also can be permanently deleted by "oversighters" (see WP:OVER). It is much more reliable way to delete personal information. See Requests for oversight. If a user wants me to delete some revisions he or she should contact me directly (preferably by Email for privacy). If they want to oversight the edits they should do Requests for oversight directly. Alex Bakharev (talk) 23:43, 29 November 2008 (UTC)

Is Holodomor article semi-protected?
There are a number of IP edits for the Holodomor article - yet the lock on top indicates that it is semi-protected. How can this be? Bobanni (talk) 06:05, 30 November 2008 (UTC)
 * The semiprotection expired on October 25. Usually a bot removes sprotect2 from article there the articles there he protection is expired but that time it did not work for some reason (maybe because the article was moveprotected?). I have protected the article for another month there are banned users who are interested in the page and there are users that a banned from the article. So, I decided not to tempt them Alex Bakharev (talk) 06:55, 30 November 2008 (UTC)

Your comment
If my post looks to you like a matter of secrecy v. openness then I haven't expressed it clearly: this is someone who habitually intervenes in tense situations and turns up the heat, then moves to the middle and acts conciliatory once the dispute has really escalated. It took me a long time to see the pattern, but it's stark once it becomes apparent. And when that approach really hurts someone, as it did with Requests for arbitration/Zeraeph, he doesn't even show remorse. Durova Charge! 01:08, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the notice. I have striked part of my comment. Still I like this guy for his trying to solve difficult conflicts rather than avoiding them Alex Bakharev (talk) 01:50, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
 * That was my opinion for a long time also. Thank you very much for the adjustment.  Best regards.  Durova Charge! 01:58, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Hopefully it will be your opinion in the future too. The dispute you mentioned foremost has not resolved yet. Jehochman Talk 02:03, 1 December 2008 (UTC)

Russian scouting
Hey Sasha, can you take a look at this for me, in the event this information is included back into the article. As you are probably aware, only Pochta Rossii is able to issue postage stamps; there is a burgeoning market for fakes out there (like Tuva issuing Elvis stamps...yeah right). I've tried pointing this out to the editor in question, but he is claiming that I need to cite that these are facts; the point that I have said that these republics issue stamps needs a citation is being completely overlooked. Cheers, --Russavia Dialogue Stalk me 11:57, 1 December 2008 (UTC)

WP a place were the dreams come true
May be you don’t know –. And when exist something which a really dream about  it’s happened: No data – no obstacles for gleaning in Russia and USSR. Soon we can seen so bellowed As far as WP-editors can easily nominate by themselves a “deniers” And trust to Hoover Institution “truth”  about how Walter Duranty in his New York Times, Nov. 15, 1931, page 1 “lie” that no Great Famine at Ukrainian SSR in 1933   exist. And similar story about New York Times, August 23, 1933 words selection –  You know if we do like this  The excellent harvest about to be gathered shows that any report of a famine in Russia is today an exaggeration or malignant propaganda. The food shortage which has affected almost the whole population in the last year, and particularly the grain-producing provinces - that is, the Ukraine, North Caucasus, the Lower Volga region - has however, caused heavy loss of life. While indeed it’s remind Ukrainian_Insurgent_Army case
 * 
 * 
 * It is certainly true that unwanted children were got rid of by inhumane or lethal practices, though mainly by starvation in various centres; and it is also reported,, for example, that some were drowned in barges on the Dnieper, (a method also used with adults).
 * No way – clear and evident denier.
 * Among the anti-Nazi resistance movements it was unique in that it had no significant foreign support at all. Its growth and strength was a reflection of the popularity it enjoyed among the people of western Ukraine.
 * Simply scratch out Massacres_of_Poles_in_Volhynia (as far as I can see 0.8 million of Poles was nominated as a nonpeople)
 * and clear unique as far as no other anti-Nazi resistance movements was not praised by V%C3%B6lkischer_Beobachter

Indeed an Ozz land with good wizards. Have a good time in this place.Jo0doe (talk) 20:21, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
 * By the autumn of 1944, the German press was full of praise for UPA for their Anti-Bolshevik successes, referring to the UPA fighters as "Ukrainian fighters for freedom" (Martovych O. The Ukrainian Insurgent Army (UPA). – Munchen, 1950 p.20).

Barnstar
Alex, thank you for this. It's very much appreciated. Things like that make a big difference. Best, SlimVirgin  talk| edits 22:16, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Slim, you certainly has deserved this Alex Bakharev (talk) 00:10, 2 December 2008 (UTC)

the lena_pillars
thank you for updating the lena pillar page. This is my first attempt at writing a wiki article. I assume that I have a lot to learn and probably need to improve that article in many ways. For now, can you tell me if I need to correct my geo tag? it seems like it's not in the right place. I am not sure what to do about it. thanks in advance!

IPS/UPS proposed merge
Please see Talk:Unified power system of Russia and the current text of the article. The intent here is to cover the entire IPS/UPS synchronous grid, which covers the largest geographical area of any interconnection. Unless you object, I shall rename it to IPS/UPS Interconnection and remove the merge template. -J JMesserly (talk) 10:02, 9 December 2008 (UTC)
 * No problems, go ahead. See also my entry to the talk Alex Bakharev (talk) 13:17, 9 December 2008 (UTC)

Oops he/she did it again
or a story about It's remind me a story when in UIA article was added a story about how UPA was unique and only Afganistan modjakheddins can be compared (book published in 1963 claim about 1980s events) and indeed similar story here - look like it does not matter what actually appeared in source or how it called - the idea is clearJo0doe (talk) 17:00, 9 December 2008 (UTC)
 * John A. Armstrong. (1963). Ukrainian Nationalism. New York: Columbia University Press, pp. 170-175

Bot Not Working

 * I recently created an article on John Reppy.
 * Whatever the merits of this article, your bot created a rather vast number of links, which mostly make no sense at all.
 * I think you should fix the thing or disable it.

Calamitybrook (talk) 02:57, 12 December 2008 (UTC)

Most of the links are to log files that would disappear in a couple of days, only links to the searchresults are of interest to a general user. They are useful to debug the search rules. I think links to User:AlexNewArtBot/EducationSearchResult, User:AlexNewArtBot/ConnecticutSearchResult, User:AlexNewArtBot/MountainsSearchResult and User:AlexNewArtBot/PhysicsSearchResult are highly relevant and useful. The links to User:AlexNewArtBot/LogicSearchResult and User:AlexNewArtBot/AstroSearchResult are less useful. You might want to spend some time to see why the results are included. Alex Bakharev (talk) 03:14, 12 December 2008 (UTC)

Sekolah Kebangsaan Seri Setia mistakes
The developer or when the school is developed is all wrong ! Are you a student in the school ? - Thulasi12345 (talk) 01:05, 16 December 2008 (UTC)


 * No, I am not related to this school and even have not known about the school existence before your message. Can you fix the article or at least point out what is wrong Alex Bakharev (talk) 05:37, 16 December 2008 (UTC)

Replaceable fair use Image:Yushchenko OurUkraine.jpg
Thanks for uploading Image:Yushchenko OurUkraine.jpg. I noticed the description page specifies that the media is being used under a claim of fair use, but its use in Wikipedia articles fails our first non-free content criterion in that it illustrates a subject for which a freely licensed media could reasonably be found or created that provides substantially the same information. If you believe this media is not replaceable, please:


 * 1) Go to the media description page and edit it to add, without deleting the original replaceable fair use template.
 * 2) On the image discussion page, write the reason why this image is not replaceable at all.

Alternatively, you can also choose to replace this non-free media by finding freely licensed media of the same subject, requesting that the copyright holder release this (or similar) media under a free license, or by taking a picture of it yourself.

If you have uploaded other non-free media, consider checking that you have specified how these images fully satisfy our non-free content criteria. You can find a list of description pages you have edited by clicking on [ this link]. Note that even if you follow steps 1 and 2 above, non-free media which could be replaced by freely licensed alternatives will be deleted 2 days after this notification (7 days if uploaded before 13 July 2006), per our non-free content policy. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Do you want to opt out of receiving this notice? Óðinn (talk) 05:56, 16 December 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the gastropod article-finding Bot
It is very useful, many thanks, Invertzoo (talk) 16:38, 19 December 2008 (UTC)

Heads up
Connected to my earlier post here, I think you might find this edit history interesting. Nothing conclusive, but interesting patterns to perhaps keep an eye on.--Stor stark7 Speak 21:40, 20 December 2008 (UTC)
 * It is almost certainly permabanned HanzoHattory aka Captain Obvious. I have looked into his contributions and they look uncontroversial to me. I, personally, see no reason to press charges so far as he is producing good content and is staying out of troubles Alex Bakharev (talk) 23:36, 20 December 2008 (UTC)
 * I have changed my mind per this, there is no reasons users should endure POV-pushing and editorial wars from a permablocked user Alex Bakharev (talk) 06:50, 22 December 2008 (UTC)
 * I'd guess signature "and his crime fighting dog" will ring some bell . I have mixed feelings about this. From one hand we have mostly good edits, but if it is Hanzo, there is this side that shows up every time . Also this is completely inappropriate if we have a case of Hanzo here. M0RD00R (talk) 20:45, 22 December 2008 (UTC)
 * His edits do not look like Hanzo's or Captain Obvious's. I do not think it is him, though if you want to formally ask for RfCU it would probably be accepted Alex Bakharev (talk) 22:57, 22 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Most of his edits does not look like Hanzo's. But there are some that follow Captain's pattern. Knowing how pedantic Hanzo/Captain is this and couple more diffs remind me of him. It feels like he just can't leave the area of Captain's editing interests no matter how hard he tries. That's my impression. Sure thing, I might be wrong. RFCU would give an answer, but I'm not sure if it is worth it at the moment. M0RD00R (talk) 23:15, 22 December 2008 (UTC)
 * As Miacek and RamboKadyrov edited simultaneously, they can hardly be the same person, especially given the difference in their interests. Would I become Hanzo if I add "crime-fighting dog" to my signature and edit Chechnya and Srebrenica-related aricles (which I do)? This is fishing, and bad fishing, because Hanzo was useful and mostly harmless. If Hanzo is banned for incivility, I don't know what we should do with such people as Giano, who is praised here and there, but is obviously much less civil. Please stay away from this. Colchicum (talk) 00:01, 23 December 2008 (UTC)
 * As I said there are more diffs that would make solid checkuser case, so I don't think it is bad fishing. What we have is the situation that is not normal. There is user that makes mostly good edits, but f--s up everything big time from time to time. The way that he deals with his situation is not a way forward. I don't think he deserves indef ban, but with every sock blocked his situation worsens and he should realize this by now. M0RD00R (talk) 00:17, 23 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Simultaneous edits: and,  and ,  and . Oviously another person. Colchicum (talk) 00:04, 25 December 2008 (UTC)

DYK for Valery Kobelev

 * Gee, thanks, although the article is mostly created by User:The Rolling Camel. I have just wikified it a little bit Alex Bakharev (talk) 01:57, 21 December 2008 (UTC)

Приколы на переменке
Do you watch that show?-- Cool Pika  chu!  10:20, 22 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Actually, No. I do not watch much television at all. I am just trying to patrol all new Russia-related articles Alex Bakharev (talk) 22:33, 22 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Hmm okay thxs anyways.-- Cool Pika  chu!  23:48, 22 December 2008 (UTC)

Requests for arbitration/Piotrus 2
This arbitration case has been closed and the final decision is available at the link above. The remedies that have been adopted are as follows;
 * Should resume editing Wikipedia, he shall be assigned a volunteer mentor, who will be asked to assist him in understanding and following policy and community practice to a sufficient level that additional sanctions will not be necessary.
 * is limited to one revert per page per week, with the exception of simple vandalism; and is required to discuss all content reverts on the relevant talk page. Should he violate this restriction, he may be blocked by any administrator as provided in the enforcement ruling below.
 * is banned from Wikipedia for a period of one year.
 * is admonished to avoid edit-warring.
 * is banned from Wikipedia for a period of one year.
 * is urged to avoid interacting directly with or commenting about under any circumstances, except for any necessary commentary in the course of bona fide dispute resolution.
 * is limited to one revert per page per week, with the exception of simple vandalism; and is required to discuss all content reverts on the relevant talk page. Should he violate this restriction, he may be blocked by any administrator as provided in the enforcement ruling below.
 * is admonished to avoid edit-warring.
 * Should make any comment deemed by an administrator to have been incivil, a personal attack, or an assumption of bad faith, he may be blocked by any administrator as provided in the enforcement ruling below.
 * is urged to avoid interacting directly with or commenting about under any circumstances, except for any necessary commentary in the course of bona fide dispute resolution.
 * is cautioned to avoid using his administrator powers or status in situations in which his involvement in an editing dispute is apparent.
 * is admonished to avoid edit-warring.
 * shall be assigned one or more volunteer mentors, who will be asked to assist him in understanding and following policy and community practice to a sufficient level that additional sanctions will not be necessary.
 * is admonished to avoid edit-warring.
 * Editors are reminded that when editing in subject areas of bitter and long-standing real-world conflict, it is all the more important to comply with Wikipedia policies such as assuming good faith of all editors including those on the other side of the real-world disputes, writing with a neutral point of view, remaining civil and avoiding personal attacks, utilizing reliable sources for contentious or disputed assertions, and resorting to dispute resolution where necessary. Wikipedia cannot solve any of the national, ethnic, historical, or cultural disputes that exists among the nations and peoples of Eastern Europe or any other real-world conflict. What Wikipedia can do is aspire to provide neutral, encyclopedic coverage about the areas of dispute and the peoples involved in it, which may lead to a broader understanding of the issues and the positions of all parties to the conflict. The contributions of all good-faith editors on these articles who contribute with this goal in mind are appreciated.
 * Editors who find it difficult to edit a particular article or topic from a neutral point of view and adhere to other Wikipedia policies are counseled that they may sometimes need or wish to step away temporarily from that article or subject area. Sometimes, editors in this position may best devote some of their knowledge, interest, and effort to creating or editing other articles that may relate to the same broad subject-matter as the dispute, but are less immediately contentious. For example, an editor whose ethnicity, cultural heritage, or personal interests relate to Group X and who finds himself or herself caught up in edit-warring on an article about a recent war between Group X and Group Y, may wish to disengage from that article for a time and instead focus on a different aspect of the history, civilization, and cultural heritage of Group X.
 * Administrators who utilize the #wikipedia-en-admins IRC channel (or other IRC channels in which Wikipedia-related matters are discussed) are reminded that while the #admins channel has legitimate purposes, they should bear in mind whenever using it:
 * (A) That discussing an issue on IRC necessarily excludes those editors who do not use IRC from the discussion (and excludes almost all non-administrators from the discussion if it takes place in #wikipedia-en-admins), and therefore, such IRC discussion is never the equivalent of on-wiki discussion or dispute resolution;
 * (B) That the practice of off-wiki "block-shopping" is strongly deprecated, and that except where there is an urgent situation and no reasonable administrator could disagree with an immediate block (e.g., ongoing blatant or pagemove vandalism or ongoing serious BLP violations), the appropriate response for an administrator asked on IRC to block an editor is to refer the requester to the appropriate on-wiki noticeboard; and
 * (C) That even though the relationship between the "wikipedia" IRC channels and Wikipedia remains ambiguous, any incidents of personal attacks or crass behavior in #wikipedia-en-admins are unwelcome and reflect adversely on all users of the channel.


 * Following the conclusion of this case, the Committee will open a general request for comments regarding the arbitration enforcement process, particularly where general sanctions are concerned. Having received such comments, the Committee will consider instituting suitable reforms to the enforcement process.
 * Following the conclusion of this case, the Committee will convene a community discussion for the purpose of developing proposed reforms to the content dispute resolution process.
 * Following the conclusion of this case, the Committee will publish guides to presenting evidence and using the workshop page.

Please see the above link to read the full case.

For the Arbitration Committee,

 Ryan Postlethwaite See the mess I've created or let's have banter 10:03, 23 December 2008 (UTC)

Image
У меня вопрос по поводу изображения File:Stadion Dynamo in Kiev.jpg. Там в описании есть предложение с вашей подписью (хотя в истории ваших правок нету), которое говорит о том, что его можно использовать в Википедии, поэтому я его загрузил в Коммонс. Но сейчас я засомневался в лицензии, ведь там нету ничего о коммерческом использовании. Вы действительно считаете, что его можно использовать с такой формулировкой?-- Anatoliy  (<font color="indigo" face="Verdana">Talk ) 16:31, 27 December 2008 (UTC)


 * Сложный вопрос. Несколько лет назад на вики считалось, что подобная формулировка полностью эквивалентна Attribution, я, лично, и сейчас так считаю. Однако, с тех пор несколько таких рисунков было удалено, поскольку в явном виде не указано, что можно использовать коммерчески и, что картинку можно модифицировать. Это серая зона - если вы положите картинку на Коммонс, то с достаточно высокой вероятностью ее сотрут, но, может быть, и оставят - как повезет. Такие дела Alex Bakharev (talk) 23:35, 27 December 2008 (UTC)

What causes the New Art Bot to get a hit?
On Christmas, I made an article on Paul Paquet. I was adding a link to that article and checked the WLH and found out about your new article bot. Many of the listings make sense, but some mystify me. How did Paul's bio get a hit on Cold War? How about Military? Paul was born in Newfoundland, and ran for parliament, but before I linked that page and in absence of any mention of Newfoundland in the article, how did we get a hit on Newfoundland, yet not Ontario or any other province of Canada? It's of no real importance, but I am wondering.  Randall Bart    Talk   18:16, 27 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Hi, Randall. Actually the article is only linked to the search result for Canada User:AlexNewArtBot/CanadaSearchResult that I believe is correct as the guy is from Canada. The article is also linked to a few "log files" that show that the bot was thinking about putting it into a feed but changed its mind. The logfiles are only useful for the people who debug the bot search rules. For other people the links to the log files have no significance and they would disappear in a day or two. In particular the bot was thinking about putting the article in the Cold War feed because the United States was mentioned in the lead but refused to do it because other search rules were not met Alex Bakharev (talk) 23:25, 27 December 2008 (UTC)

Sockpuppet of Hanzo
Hey Sasha, I posted over at Khoikhoi's talk page in regards to User:Putinjugend here. Although it is moot by the looks of it, can you possibly just do the formalities and block him at a HH sockpuppet. It would also need to be included in Category:Wikipedia sockpuppets of HanzoHattori. Cheers, --Russavia Dialogue 00:18, 28 December 2008 (UTC) until 18 January
 * Done Alex Bakharev (talk) 00:28, 28 December 2008 (UTC)

Signpost updated for November 24, 2008 through January 3, 2009
Three issues have been published since the last deliver: November 24, December 1, and January 3.

You are receiving this message because you have signed up for the Signpost spamlist. If you wish to stop receiving these messages, simply remove your name from the list.--ragesoss (talk) 21:42, 3 January 2009 (UTC)