User talk:Jo0doe

<!--

Welcome
Hello,, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are some pages that you might find helpful: I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes ( ~ ); this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you need help, check out Questions, ask me on my talk page, or place  on your talk page and someone will show up shortly to answer your questions. Again, welcome! --Irpen 05:03, 12 October 2007 (UTC)
 * The five pillars of Wikipedia
 * How to edit a page
 * Help pages
 * Tutorial
 * How to write a great article
 * Manual of Style

Fair use rationale for Image:Arableland ukr.jpg
Thanks for uploading or contributing to Image:Arableland ukr.jpg. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is not a suitable explanation or rationale as to why each specific use in Wikipedia constitutes fair use. Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale.

If you have uploaded other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on those pages too. 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 media lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Template:Di-no fair use rationale-notice NOTE: once you correct this, please remove the tag from the image's page. STBotI (talk) 07:47, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:Ukrrailwto.jpg
Thanks for uploading or contributing to Image:Ukrrailwto.jpg. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is not a suitable explanation or rationale as to why each specific use in Wikipedia constitutes fair use. Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale.

If you have uploaded other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on those pages too. 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 media lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Template:Di-no fair use rationale-notice NOTE: once you correct this, please remove the tag from the image's page. STBotI (talk) 15:26, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

Citing sources
Please do not forget to cite the sources of the information you are adding to Holodomor. The sourcing of the articles on such controversial topics are especially important. Thanks, --Irpen 08:04, 19 December 2007 (UTC)


 * Some of sources cited here but all of them in Ukrainian or Russian, some of them ordered for print in quantity of 500- 1000 -3000 - 10000 pcs. Jo0doe (talk) 15:17, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

There is nor requirement for the sources to be in English, neither that they are printed in large numbers. Sources that are Russian, Ukrainian and rare are acceptable if they are reputable, reliable and verifiable. Your sources are certainly good to use. I am just asking that you don't forget to site them.

On the side note, I am asking you to refrain from commenting on the contributors like you have done at Talk:UPA. Please stick to the commenting on the content. People go over the great effort of going over your edits and improving the writing (your English is not so good which is nothing to be ashamed about) rather than just revert your edits because much of what you write is supported by the sources you cite. This is a good practice. Disparaging your contributors is not. Finally, if this is easier, you can respond to me in Russian or Ukrainian. Regards, --Irpen 02:39, 24 December 2007 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:1926censusmapping.jpg
Thanks for uploading or contributing to Image:1926censusmapping.jpg. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is not a suitable explanation or rationale as to why each specific use in Wikipedia constitutes fair use. Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale.

If you have uploaded other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on those pages too. 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 media lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Template:Di-no fair use rationale-notice NOTE: once you correct this, please remove the tag from the image's page. Additionally, if you continue uploading bad images, you may be blocked from uploading. STBotI (talk) 08:30, 25 December 2007 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:1926-censkuban.jpg
Thanks for uploading or contributing to Image:1926-censkuban.jpg. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is not a suitable explanation or rationale as to why each specific use in Wikipedia constitutes fair use. Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale.

If you have uploaded other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on those pages too. 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 media lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Template:Di-no fair use rationale-notice NOTE: once you correct this, please remove the tag from the image's page. STBotI (talk) 08:33, 25 December 2007 (UTC)

Your question
OK, I will look at the articles you asked me to but I cannot give you any guarantees wrt to the time frame. One thing, though. You've got to change at once the style of your comments in the part where you discuss the opponents. I worked with Faustian and it has always been a pleasure. His views are different from your (they are also different from mine) but no way in hell he deserved the epithets you are giving him. Not only this does not help you to resolve the content disputes but it may get you blocked. The fact that you source your edits and bring many unknown to others sources to the Wikipedia is appreciated but you've got to tone it down. Feel free to respond in Russian or Ukrainian if English is difficult for you. --Irpen 02:21, 9 February 2008 (UTC)


 * Thank you, all clear for me. So I can't call falsifications as falsifications, demagogy as demagogy and propaganda as propaganda?

So could you please advice me how to handle issues with "maskirovka units" of MGB and "police divisions" of Germans? If cycle is not triangle - were to get WP:V source for this. Thanks for your your advice.Jo0doe (talk) 09:20, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

also see bottom
 * I sprosila krokha – chto takoe xorosho – chto takoe plokho

and 

I assume that’s good
 * your unreferenced claims and speculations, as typical Faustian
 * Your poor grasp of the English language is obvious. So much so that some of your comments *and edits make little sense Faustian
 * you lie by ommission. Faustian
 * That's just your POV Faustian
 * Your claims. Faustian

I assume it’s bad


 * Demagogy as is - isn't?

Please provide ref for more broad list of bad – which should I omit in order to avoid blocking.Jo0doe (talk) 11:12, 9 February 2008 (UTC)


 * Your set of quotes are rather selective, but yes, some of them are objectionable. I asked Faustian to be a little more considerate. But your comments to him were frequently rather rude as well. Look, instead of discussing who uttered worse comments, let's concentrate on avoiding more of that sort. Please. --Irpen 00:44, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

English Dictionary Definition of ARMY

 * a: a large organized body of armed personnel trained for war especially on land
 * b: a unit capable of independent action and consisting usually of a headquarters, two or more corps, and auxiliary troops

Army as in Continental Army Army as in Confederate Army

Bobanni (talk) 21:52, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

Disputed fair use rationale for Image:Ukrexpimp19281934.jpg
Thanks for uploading Image:Ukrexpimp19281934.jpg. However, there is a concern that the rationale you have provided for using this image under "fair use" may be invalid. Please read the instructions at Non-free content carefully, then go to the image description page and clarify why you think the image qualifies for fair use. Using one of the templates at Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to ensure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If it is determined that the image does not qualify under fair use, it will be deleted within a couple of days according to our criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the media copyright questions page. Thank you. Template:No fair BetacommandBot (talk) 02:37, 12 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Fixed. --Irpen 02:45, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

Please choose you words carefully
You have developed a habit of labeling various edits as "Vandalism"

You may be interested in the following section from Vandalism

Vandalism is any addition, removal, or change of content made in a deliberate attempt to compromise the integrity of Wikipedia. The most common types of vandalism include the addition of obscenities or crude humor, page blanking, or the insertion of nonsense into articles.

Any good-faith effort to improve the encyclopedia, even if misguided or ill-considered, is not vandalism. Even harmful edits that are not explicitly made in bad faith are not considered vandalism. For example, adding a personal opinion to an article once is not vandalism — it's just not helpful, and should be removed or restated. Not all vandalism is obvious, nor are all massive or controversial changes vandalism; careful attention needs to be given to whether changes made are beneficial, detrimental but well intended, or outright vandalism.

I've used terms mentioned Vandalism is any addition, removal, or change of content made in a deliberate attempt to compromise the integrity of WikipediaJo0doe (talk) 14:59, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

Since all my edits referred to articles which highly involved in political matters – I assume every facts has an significant importance. Moreover most of my edits based on WP:PSTS – primary sources (data/facts appeared before or shortly events) while my opponents predominantly used charged with propaganda, POV, sources with non reliable data or even not WP:PSTS sources. As vandalism I assumed emoval, or change of content made in a deliberate attempt to compromise the integrity of Wikipedia. My last usage of Vandalism was related by action of Riurik(discuss) - removal of ===Procurement practice === section from Holodomor by the reason of whitewash "subject xyz" by mentioning too many factors. I assume what every facts in history are important. Also as far as I know WP:NOT so it’s not right reason for removal. Especially if they described a higher demand for grain from some areas instead less demand from others. Mentioning the fact what such policy exist for a long time before makes questionable deliberately applied higher demand in the specific year, to use such as punishing factor (as mentioned in some POV and known for unreliable data sources).

I also apply this terms to edits by user Faustian, Bobbanie and Bandurist - blanking and change of content - deliberate attempt to compromise the integrity of Wikipedia. Jo0doe (talk) 18:46, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free media (Image:Radgosp.jpg)
Thanks for uploading Image:Radgosp.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. Template:Orphaned BJBot (talk) 07:00, 12 March 2008 (UTC)
 * FYI, I've fixed this so it is now listed as Public Domain in Ukraine. Nobody of Consequence (talk) 21:29, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

NPA
Welcome to Wikipedia. Although everyone is welcome to contribute constructively to the encyclopedia, we would like to remind you not to attack other editors. Please comment on the contributions and not the contributors. Take a look at the welcome page to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia. Template:uw-npa1 Please no personal attacks on other contributors. This time Irpen removed them, next time please watch your language yourself or you might be blocked Alex Bakharev (talk) 07:40, 2 April 2008 (UTC)


 * Please advice me what wrong with "My Dear" and mentioned clearly described facts of deception lasted in 1.5 year at WP without personal attacks

(I've not menioned editor name) - simply mentioned a proved by facts eventJo0doe (talk) 07:46, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

Joe, the editor whose name you finally stopped calling, has been a real angel with you. If you had unleashed such a campaign against most any other editor, you would have been reported and blocked by now.

This is a good time for you to reconsider the style of your talk page entries. Otherwise, your editing career here may be greatly shortened. And I am not interested in your opinion about that (or any other) editor. So, please do not bother telling that. Some self-reflection is in order. --Irpen 08:00, 2 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Thank you for info- I'll no more mention Y.Krochmalyuk 1973 and rest from most ever credible and more than angel editor.Jo0doe (talk) 16:22, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

Recent citation from the angels songs: suspect you are engaging in a Scorched earth policy Faustian (talk) 16:42, 1 April 2008 (UTC) you are interested in disrupting the article rather than engaging in discussion?Faustian (talk) 14:09, 1 April 2008 (UTC) This particular editor has dismissed out of hand various secondary sources that contradict his original research. The particular editor either deletes information by these various secondary sources or cherry picks information from his original research throught he archives that seems to contradict what the secondary source says. The particular editor, in dismissing the various secondary sources shown above, then places POV tags on sections (or the entire article) that are thoroughly and well-referenced, apparently because he personally doesn't like the secondary sources. Conclusion: even here this “angel” can’t stop deceptions twisting and misusing of facts. I assume nobody care about WP:ASSOAPBOX ???Jo0doe (talk) 17:14, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

Joe, the tone of your comments is unacceptable and you wore everyone's patience with them. From now on, I will be removing any of your comments from talk pages in toto if they are offensive. You harassed (and I am using this word intentionally) Faustian long enough. Regardless of who is right or wrong content wise, you have no right whatsoever to make comments aimed at increasing the editor's stress to make him leave Wikipedia. If this continues, you will be forced to leave.

I told you many times and I tell you again that the sources you bring in is a very useful contribution to Wikipedia despite their having to be worked into articles mostly by others. We accommodate editors with different level of English and the occasional incivility is often ignored as this is not a manner's salon and people do often have passionate feelings about content. But repeated outbursts are not tolerated and won't be. So, I warn you that from now on, each and every your entry to a talk page which is offensive will be removed in toto and you will have to rewrite it. I will no more edit your comments to make them acceptable. I will simply remove them. I hope you take this message to heart and we won't see any more of that. --Irpen 17:50, 22 April 2008 (UTC)


 * Please mention which one is incorrect - I'll keep in mind to avoid so.Jo0doe (talk) 17:57, 22 April 2008 (UTC)


 * Please advice - I assume that as a perfect example of civility - Of course the claims above are one particular editor's OR and words. And this particualr editor has been caught misusing sources in various ways documented in the article's archived talk pages.Faustian (talk) 15:30, 22 April 2008 (UTC) But I just would like to knew the aim of including data which does not exist in source (several time) and twist the mentioned in surce.

I've no plan to harassed anyone - simple would like to have an answers or explanations why (for instance) September itnterpreted as July Jo0doe (talk) 18:08, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

Please, Joe, you are an intelligent person and can't demand an explanation what in your editing amounts harassment given their history. I will look at the issue though. Also, please care to format your entries. You should not be forcing anyone to go after you making your edits readable. --Irpen 18:12, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free media (Image:Ukrratio.jpg)
Thanks for uploading Image:Ukrratio.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. Template:Orphaned BJBot (talk) 11:33, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

Please edit cooperatively
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.

It is better to make a short change in the article that stays than a longer change that is reverted on sight. Then you can argue for another change, etc. it is slow but it goes somewhere.

Please see the discussion on User_talk:Alex_Bakharev. I incline to agree with your opponents. I have protected the article for two weeks so you have a chance to get some consensus on talk. Please be civil, please do not engage into another edit war.

Consider it is a last warning, next time I would have to use my block button. Thanks for understanding Alex Bakharev (talk) 14:18, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

Report
Hello, This message is being sent to inform you that there currently is a discussion at regarding your ongoing abuse. Faustian (talk) 14:20, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

So you know!
I like the current Ukrainian government a lot! Mariah-Yulia (talk) 02:34, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

Majority view
Hi - the concept of a majority view is not simple, but editors have generally looked to see what generally recognised experts in a field say. For example, editors of recent academic texts or peer-reviewed papers on the topic. It may also be of interest to see whether there is a common view put across in introductory texts on a topic. There is some controversy as to how much significance should be attached to a view which is widely held among non-experts but is little held by experts. If it is genuinely difficult to determine what the majority opinion among experts is, then I'd suggest not treating either as the majority view, and simply giving alternative positions along with notes on significant proponents. Warofdreams talk 00:47, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

Hello
Hello,

JoOdoe, please try to limit your comments on the Holodomor talk page to a reasonable length. You have many things to add. However, if you add them all at once, they become very difficult to follow. Thanks, Horlo (talk) 07:31, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

Dispute concerning Ukrainian Insurgent Army
Thanks for your messages on my talk page. Please accept my apologies for the delay in replying.

I have no particular knowledge of the topics which have been under dispute, but a few thoughts do occur to me. It appears that some of the circumstances are a matter of genuine academic dispute. We cannot say who is right or wrong in such a dispute. We're all aware that many academics do have particular world views which may be reflected in their work, but we can't disregard their peer reviewed work simply because some editors feel that they are "Kremlinologists" or whatever. Allegations like this should have no bearing on our work, and they shouldn't even be reported unless reputable and notable sources can be found claiming such things.

However, we can, and should ensure that the sources we use are verifiable and either (preferably) have appeared in peer-reviewed journals or publications giving clear indication of a similar level of scholarship, or that they can be shown to be representative of a particular line of thought held by a significant number of people. Where there is some controversy, we should also state who advances the viewpoints we describe.

It may be that the Institute of History of the Ukrainian Academy of Sciences is of greater note than the figures from Google Scholar suggest. This is pure speculation on my part, but perhaps they have published significant work in Russian or Ukrainian which has not been translated? Either way, the Ukrainian Academy of Sciences in general is widely cited.

Lastly, on the quote "...editors should use English-language sources in preference to sources in other languages, assuming the availability of an English-language source of equal quality..." - I believe that this is intended to govern which source should be used in the event of two sources of equal quality stating the same thing. I don't believe that it is intended to argue for giving English language sources precedence where sources in another language say something quite different.

I hope this is of some use. Please feel free to contact me, should you have any questions or comments. I have also added this comment at User talk:Faustian. Warofdreams talk 11:05, 6 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Thank you for clear and detailed explanation. But specifically Institute of History of the Ukrainian Academy of Sciences published historical conference materials "Ukraine in WWII dimention" mentioned what specifically noted person is "Kremlinologist" and his work is not histrical work  but a new-kremlinology oneJo0doe (talk) 13:12, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

From the User page (I guess it belongs here)
What is your beef. Why do you continue to be so destructive in you edits? Bandurist (talk) 11:12, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

Please stop your disruptive editing. If your vandalism continues, you will be blocked from editing Wikipedia. Template:uw-vandalism3
 * Thank you user:Alex_Bakharev for removing personal attack at my user page talkJo0doe (talk) 08:09, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:Sam_ukr.jpg
Thanks for uploading or contributing to Image:Sam_ukr.jpg. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in Wikipedia articles constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use. Suggestions on how to do so can be found here.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to ensure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If you have uploaded other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on those pages too. 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 media lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. 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? Template:Missing rationale Melesse (talk) 23:25, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

Re:Sneaky vandalism
Well, the edits aren't vandalism per WP:VANDALISM. Sorry for the delayed response. Deacon of Pndapetzim ( Talk ) 02:59, 6 September 2008 (UTC)


 * Why do you call everything sneaky vandalism ?Bandurist (talk) 01:42, 18 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Mainly I've use a blanking and OR per WP:SYN - See your "edits" of my comments - - it's called sneaky vandalism Jo0doe (talk) 07:24, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

Soviet-Nazi co-operation
Interesting article on Soviet-Fascist co-operation here title Bandurist (talk) 10:59, 29 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Nothing new from Felstinskyy and US institution effort http://lib.ru/HISTORY/FELSHTINSKY/sssr_germany1939.txtJo0doe (talk) 13:57, 29 September 2008 (UTC)
 * While better to have look at source - Nazi-Soviet Relations, 1939--1941. Dokuments from the Archives of The German Foreign Office, Department of State, 1948.Jo0doe (talk) 14:00, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

Does this mean that soviets were actually Nazi collaborators? Wow! Horlo (talk) 08:53, 24 October 2008 (UTC) Indeed, initially they were, and then they went off in their own direction. 20:36, 25 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Use WP power Nazi_collaborators before make any conclusions. Thank you--Jo0doe (talk) 10:01, 24 October 2008 (UTC)

JoOdoe, sorry, but what does "use WP power" mean? Is that like "wonder twin power"?Horlo (talk) 09:20, 27 October 2008 (UTC)

Talk:Massacres_of_Poles_in_Volhynia
Please see my warning there.--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus 16:34, 25 October 2008 (UTC)

Re: Could you be so kind to advice a solution
Hi - thanks for your message.

With regard to your first example, I'd suggest that the first paragraph you propose would work better if the statements are in some way controversial, while the second paragraph would work better if they are widely agreed upon. As you suggest that not everyone agrees with the statements, it would be wise to state whose opinions they are. Also, I think it might read better if you left out the years, which can go in the references - unless the organisations' views have changed over time, or the works are likely to be confused with others if not clarified by the years.

Please note that I have no specialist knowledge of this topic area, so I can't comment on whether the paragraph is well placed in any particular article.


 * "Is it correct to join 1944-52 and 1944-47 data in one sentence without clear mentioned such differences in text? Is it correct to call one source as “sources”. Is it correct to use 1988 text if available 2000 edition of text which actually does not mentioned above mentioned?"

Joining data for two different periods does not look like a good idea to me - while it doesn't change the significant point being made, it's better to be as clear as possible. Although it is fairly common for one given source to be casually described as "sources" if an editor believes the statement to be supported by other sources, I would again advise being as clear as possible, and use "according to another source" - or, much better, name the source.

If something is included in the 1988 text and not in the 2000 edition, I'd ask why it has been omitted. Is it due to lack of space - perhaps the entire section has been omitted? Or could it be because the author no longer supports the claim? I have no way of knowing why it has been left out, but I wouldn't be surprised if such a statement is challenged. At the very least, this is a good example of where it is important to state the date.


 * "Also one more question – how many references from different sources should be provided for fact in order to protect it from replacement it with the info without any references?"

There is no magic number here. Ideally, everything in an article should be supported by verifiable and reliable references, be relevant and succinct, but even then, I could imagine circumstances where it might be removed - for example, if it is put more clearly by another source, repeats too closely what is said elsewhere in the article, or means that an excessive portion of the article is devoted to just one aspect of the topic. Warofdreams talk 20:37, 26 October 2008 (UTC)

Sources?
Hi. Came across your name, & since you seem knowledgeable about the EFront of WW2, let me ask. What would you say were the 2 or 3 best sources (in English; sadly, I don't read Russian) on Stavka &/or Stalin's command decisions during the war? Thanks.  TREKphiler hit me ♠ 23:26, 29 October 2008 (UTC)

Sorry, I’m not knowledgeable about the EFront of WW2 in general – but in specific topic – partisan activities and anti-partisan actions by Nazi’s in 1941-44 and about EF at Ukraine (1941 and 1943-44) – but most valuable (on my sought)  not in English – but German and on some extent at Russian (with some limitation). Jo0doe (talk) 08:08, 30 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the link. I can use babelfish to get close, & if I run into too much trouble, I'll ask. The help is much appreciated.  TREKphiler  hit me ♠ 11:47, 20 November 2008 (UTC)

Volhynia
1) "criminals from Ukrainian police", who were " already experienced in numerous mass murders of Jewish and Polish population, "b 2) "brutally" tortured, brutally murdered instead of simply "tortured", "murdered" (no need to introduce such emotionally charged words into wikipedia) 3) "it has been established that without wide support from local Ukrainians they would have been impossible" instead of suggested 4) Galizieb instead of Galizien, took part instead of took place, "was died" Szopen (talk) 08:48, 30 October 2008 (UTC) I have no opinion on the other quotes Szopen (talk) 09:25, 30 October 2008 (UTC)

Proper way to revert a split
The correct way to revert a split is to merge the split article back into the main article. Simply going back to the pre-split article given that there were many interim edits. Otherwise edits are going to be reverted without explanation or discussion.

If you revert you need to merge the Cause of the Holodomor article otherwise you mess up the articles.

If you persist with you methodology it may become necessary to escalate this issue to a dispute resolution. Bobanni (talk) 09:13, 21 November 2008 (UTC)
 * * Could you conclude your sentence
 * Simply going back to the pre-split article given that there were many interim edits.
 * it has no sence


 * I'm not revert - I fix hoaxes and update article with reliable information -per contributors consensus. Thank youJo0doe (talk) 09:24, 21 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Yes, you obviously aren't a revert. However, you have reverted the article 3 times within 24 hours, though admittedly they were 'semi-reverts' (you have changed your additions). --Miacek (talk) 09:28, 21 November 2008 (UTC)
 * No - I'm not reverted the article - I've improve it content -

see diff See talk page for explanation - see WP rules - NOHOAXES Jo0doe (talk) 09:32, 21 November 2008 (UTC)
 * 
 * 
 * WP reliability is a must - please do not exploit it as soap box. thank you

November 2008
You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war. Note that the three-revert rule prohibits making more than three reversions on a single page within a 24 hour period. Additionally, users who perform a large number of reversions in content disputes may be blocked for edit warring, even if they do not technically violate the three-revert rule. If you continue, you may be blocked from editing. Please do not repeatedly revert edits, but use the talk page to work towards wording and content that gains a consensus among editors. If necessary, pursue dispute resolution. Template:uw-3rr Miacek (talk) 09:22, 21 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Please do not game with system - you can see my detailed explanation of my edits and consensus of contributors not to split article
 * [WP:NOHOAXES] (no Völkischer Beobachter pictures outside the Völkischer Beobachter article and rest "Zhukovs orders" Jo0doe (talk) 09:35, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

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

Note
Under Requests for arbitration/Digwuren I am banning you from all Holodomor-related articles for persistent disruption, consisting largely of violations of WP:TALK and WP:SOAPBOX. This ban will be enforced by block if necessary.

If you do not understand what I am saying here, it boils down to this. From now on you are not permitted to edit any articles, talk pages, templates or categories that relate to Holodomor. If that's not clear enough then please ask someone else to translate for you. Moreschi (talk) 10:32, 27 November 2008 (UTC)
 * I have now blocked you for a year. Clearly banning you from Holodomor only led to further disruption elsewhere. There is no reason why productive editors should have to put up with your persistent tendentious editing, soapboxing, and general WP:TALK violations. Please also consider that this is the English Wikipedia and contributors must maintain an acceptable level of that language. In other words, I recommend a language course during the next 12 months. Moreschi (talk) 21:55, 17 December 2008 (UTC)
 * So - as far as I assume - edits which based on scholar works now called as disruptive editing - Charming. So sad approach, especially from person with admin power.Jo0doe (talk) 09:36, 18 December 2008 (UTC)


 * Joe, sit tight with this, as I will be raising this block at ANI as I don't believe it is justified given the circumstances. Feel free to email me if there is anything you would like raised. Cheers, --Russavia Dialogue Stalk me 05:54, 18 December 2008 (UTC)
 * I'll appreciate your assistance in this matter. Thank youJo0doe (talk) 09:36, 18 December 2008 (UTC)

The Law of Spikelets
The Law of Spikelets links text of the law (in Russian) and the Russian Wiki article with several links. Ukrainian source:. I meant only USSR, not Russia.Xx236 (talk) 11:59, 3 December 2008 (UTC) I have answered you on Talk:Gleaning.Xx236 (talk) 08:00, 5 December 2008 (UTC)

Block
  So list of false in "block appeal"– Or – member of Lviv Oblast parlament together with followers from UNSO claim  “all in Ukraine belongs only to ethical Ukrainians – there no place at Ukraine nor for moskals (Russians) nor for kikes (Jews) nor for both property.
 * False accusation can be lead to block – if found a “correct” words and appropriate tools
 * redoubled his "efforts" on other Ukraine-related articles (Waffen-SS and SS article as also Gleaning not actually other Ukraine-related articles
 * I did some research into Maslovsky – nice claim from WP editor
 * Basically he was a communist-era historian (book published in 1999 –Nice term communist-era – look like Cold War propaganda)
 * became unemployed after the fall of communism (He became unemployed in 1990, as there was communism which can be fall – as falsely (propaganda stile) claimed – USSR disbanded in 1991.
 * maintained an unoffocial career as a Russian nationalist writer ( false - see Vitaliy Maslovskyy – well known scientist and author, pedagogue, PHD in history, author of many works link below)
 * Here is a taste of what Maslovsky's writing (he forgot to cite origin of that conclusion - Львовского областного совета Олег Витович во главе группы активистов УНСО Львовского областного совета Олег Витович во главе группы активистов УНСО … заявив, что на Украине все принадлежит только украинцам, а жидам и москалям здесь нет ни места ни имуществ
 * I quickly glanced through Maslovsky's work (nice argument- quickly glanced- isn’t)
 * saw close parallels between his arguments on various topics and those of Jo0doe (does Maslovskyy mentioned a Gleaning – does I’ve used it at leas once his works ? - any diffs was not provided )
 * Wikipedia really ought not to be a venue for the spread of Maslovsky's ideas (false claim – noone of my edits from November 2007 referenced or cited any of Maslovsky work).
 * Do we need to got through months of arbcom and other bureacracy for what sems to be black-and-white example of an extensive history of disruptive, nationalistic POV-pushing, cherry-picking, etc (nice insinuation without any refs)

While it’s really nice to see a collection of epithets regarding Maslovsky Indeed interesting why was not cited a non wpedian editor opinion –
 * A nasty Russian nationalist was killed
 * bitter washed-up Ukrainophobe
 * Maslovsky is a darling of Russian nationalists

Виталий Масловский – известный ученый и публицист, педагог, доктор исторических наук, автор многих книг и статей, среди которых – "Дорога в бездну", "Оружие Ярослава Галана", "Земля обвиняет" и другие. В своей новой работе он рассказывает о трагедии галицких евреев. Будучи во время войны подростом, В.Масловский стал свидетелем жизни и смерти людей в Ковельском гетто на Волыни, где погибло все еврейское население города – 13 тысяч человек. Vitaliy Maslovskyy – well known scientist and author, pedagogue, PHD in history, author of many works. In his new work he describe the tragedy of Galicia Jews. He was a witness of life and death of Jews at Kovel Ghetto Look like someone afraid from scholar comment при активной помощи и непосредственном участии украинских коллаборационистов уничтожили более двух миллионов человек, из них: более 800 тысяч евреев, более 500 тысяч украинцев, 200-220 тысяч поляков, более 400 тысяч советских военнопленных. Nazi Ukrainian-collaborators exterminated more then 2 millions of humans – 800 thousand of Jews, more then 500 thousands of Ukrainians 200-220 thousand of Poles and more then 400 of Soviet POW.

While indeed interesting to note the highlighted claim:
 * Is work Mirroring Russian Nationalist Web-sites acceptable
 * So editor forgot to note what this site got a nice online library which also have Mykhailo Drahomanov Pavlo Skoropadskyi Nikolay Kostomarov Ivan_Franko and at least Paul Magoci

Does it need to ban editors which used Magoci (as also editor which put false claims) simply because at placed at
 * www.ukrstor.com nominated as Russian Nationalist Web-sites – actually it’s online library – [Russian Nationalist Web-sites].

But anyway it’s indeed interesting to see such prompt reaction of the very busy admin Which has no intend to assist editor with explanation about previous ban May be it a results of nice? 
 * So why actually hoax mentioned above lead to prompt block for 1 year?
 * I really don’t think what here is successful example of Big Lie modern apply.
 * argghhh


 * Note trigger words in block -appeal message – communist and Russian nationalist - nice


 * But actually what underpin the block shopping – it’s a long story named as - or how to protect a WP:QS and not to follow WP:NPOV, WP:V and WP:RS.So Take a block for editor which asked you a page number - it's a better solution not do do soJo0doe (talk) 13:23, 19 December 2008 (UTC)

UIA Makivka and Black forest Battle groups
A recommended reading WP:PUSH and WP:NOR WP:ISNOT

If we looking at block-promoting editor interest of edits – it mostly related to ethnical Ukrainians (even alleged in some case) and Galician (eastern Europe) nationalistic topics         


 * I'm interested in topics related to western Ukraine and western ethnic Ukrainians, sure. Is this a crime?Faustian (talk) 14:24, 19 December 2008 (UTC)

So in generally approach of edits called in modern Ukrainian historiography – “an OUN-B” version – see this edit


 * Claiming that I am presenting an "OUN-B" version of history is an utterly false smear. Here are my contributions about the "OUN-B":


 * "On August 18th, 1943, Taras Bulba-Borovets and his headquarters was surrounded in a suprise attack by OUN-B force consisting of several battalions. Some of his forces, including his wife, were captured, while five of his officers were killed. Borovets escaped but refused to submit, in a letter accusing the OUN-B of among other things: banditry; of wanting to establish a one-party state; and of fighting not for the people but in order to rule the people. In retaliation, his wife was murdered after two weeks of torture at the hands of the OUN-B's SB. In October 1943 Bulba-Borovets largely disbanded his depleted force in orer to end further bloodshed. [17] In their struggle for dominance in Volhynia, the Banderists would kill tens of thousands of Ukrainians for links to Bulba-Borovets or Melnyk. [18]"


 * And from here :


 * "Perhaps the largest practical effect of German rule on the Volhynia massacres was in the case of Ukrainian nationalist participation within the German police forces. During the first year of German occupation, the Organization of Ukrainian Nationalists pursued a policy of infiltrating the German police units with it members. In this role they obtained training in the use of weapons, and would also assist the German SS in murdering approximately 200,000 Volhynian Jews. While the Ukrainian police's share in the actual killings of Jews was small (they primarily played a supporting role), the Ukrainian police learned from the Germans the techniques necessary to kill large numbers of people: detailed advanced planning and careful site selection; assurances to the local population prior to the massacres in order for them to let down their guard; sudden encirclement; and then mass killing. This training obtained in 1942 explains the UPA's efficiency in the killing of Poles in 1943. [18]"


 * etc. etc.


 * I'm not going to bother defending myself against similarly wild and unfounded accusations from a deservedly blocked editor.Faustian (talk) 14:24, 19 December 2008 (UTC)

As far as editor familiar with human psychology  So It’s easily for editor to use a correctly “prepared words” to create a “right” impression.

First “disagreement” on QS and OR in WP approach appeared at late 2007 – all is spinning around invented by editor – a “highly reliable source”  of SS-origin “engineer”  Y.Krochmalyuk – WP:SPS and WP:QS.

extensive usage of that WP:QS posed as RS (see diff above) 

My active usage of WP :RS lead to “attention” to my WP:RS referenced (see no “adding reference” action – only blanking) – section – which actually and finally was incorporated in the article and lasted in it until “redistribution”

As far as I still fight for WP reliability – gaming system and block shopping involved – as it’s much more “easy” if comparing the RS reading.

So proficiency in human psychology and clear gaming the system – allow  to create fact-less impression about alleged OR (note – no diff provided0 -   . Despite this effort User:Alex Bakharev express his concern on issue. But “familiar with human psychology” summoned “disruptor” wons –  as been “correctly” pushed   But anyway sooner or later (2 year) truth appeared –  but not again about topic switching – not a trigger of dispute (proven as false) but about alleged uncivil behavior (note – no diff). But truth easily can be distorted – so dispute again switched from WP:RS issue to ad hominem “arguments”. So good idea would be accuse in OR  by pushing false highlights “Austrian officer” “conversations between German officials recalled six years after the conversation” and appeal to “How much longer will this sort of thing be tolerated?” (despite only one and false was “presented”). Protect a propaganda source  –« History of undefeated » by present other editor in “poisoning the atmosphere of the page”. Do not forget to provoke an edit-warring Do not forget to insult OR A refuse to provide a source and pages number      a protect a QS ref

 Do not forget to add false claim about “date is referenced in the body of the article” And be “civil” Don’t forget edit warring –     – nice comment about WP:RS - remove usual trash Ask for cooperative action against
 * a really nice comments

Nice WP:BLP comment
 * a clown and troll era and false accusation comments


 * nice WP:SOAPBOX comment
 * Nice attempt to game a system block shopping with false accusation in OR –
 * Nice ref to WP:QS
 * attempt to misrepresent editor which failed

(as regard to claims about that is not he – who add all ”crunchy” stuff to article)    
 * A divisional story [14th_Waffen_Grenadier_Division_of_the_SS_Galicia_(1st_Ukrainian)]
 * nice spam in the article

So [] should be updated with recent practice – provocative messages on talk pages, accuse in own habit. -->
 * So attempt to made WP as a reliable source and to remove a WP:SPS and WP:QS and substitute it with WP:RS can lead to block in "English" WP Jo0doe (talk) 13:23, 19 December 2008 (UTC)

 Jo0doe (talk) 08:04, 18 December 2009 (UTC)

Jo0doe (talk) 07:06, 31 August 2010 (UTC) <!-- You also removed valid information and replaced it with copyright-violations. Manxruler (talk) 03:02, 9 January 2010 (UTC)
 * I suggest you, before placing a notice, more carefully examine the source and text added to article - and find a differences. While if it placed only to replace 4 words sentence comes from WP:RS vs self-nominated "valid" information originated from unknown jornalist - it's realy sad. Thanks Jo0doe (talk) 10:36, 9 January 2010 (UTC)
 * You seem to misunderstand. You copied text directly from here, and pasted it into the article. That is not allowed. Hence the copyright violation warning. What I am noted for? I don't understand that question. Manxruler (talk) 00:36, 10 January 2010 (UTC)
 * You mean - I use modified text from there here, - and used it in article - and were is directly ? So - who is Sergey, why his information is "valid"? Why royalnavy-history.net usage of word Murmansk is "copyright-violations"& ThanksJo0doe (talk) 09:35, 10 January 2010 (UTC)
 * "Modified"? You didn't modify the text, that's the problem. This is what you did: Copy-paste-change two-three words-save. That's not the way to do by a long shot. I don't know who Sergey is, but he seems to be writing for a fairly substantial magazine, why should I doubt the source, is it a bad source? Furthermore I don't see where Segey and royalnavy-history.net disagrees, what are you reffering to in this respect? Manxruler (talk) 10:01, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

Jo0doe, Manxruler is right, the section you added at was far too closely copied from its source, this is not legitimate. Please don't do that again. Fut.Perf. ☼ 11:11, 10 January 2010 (UTC)
 * It would be greatifull if someone explaine me how names of vessels and thier tonnage can be not too closed copied:)? There is the margin of WP:RS usage Thanks
 * Also would nice to explaine me what actually copyright-violations in sentence German tanker departed Murmansk during the evening of 6 April. Thanks
 * Also - as per talk) Furthermore I don't see where Segey and royalnavy-history.net disagrees - does Basis Nord at Zapadnaya Litsa and Murmansk is the same place at en-WP?


 * I really appreciated your advices - as far it's really needed - for better understanding the difference between WP:OR and WP:V + WP:RS. ThanksJo0doe (talk) 13:13, 10 January 2010 (UTC)
 * - too closely or - not too closely? Badly need to see a margine. While I guess - it needed new warning template to be established - for "too closely":) I'll expect that mathematics editors will be challenged first:)) (E=mc^2:))Jo0doe (talk) 13:38, 10 January 2010 (UTC)


 * Jo0doe:
 * 1. Just accept that the edits you made, using royalnavy-history.com as a source, was completely unacceptably close to the source text. As I've now said about four or five times, you write your own text based on the source at hand, you do not copy the source text and then tweak it slightly.
 * 2. Segey and royalnavy-history.net do not disagree. Zapadnaya Litsa is in Murmansk Oblast. royalnavy-history.com does not specify if they mean the city of Murmansk or the oblast. Why are you so incredibly suspicious of Sergey, anyway? Philbin says the same thing in his book. Jan Wellem came from Basis Nord. Manxruler (talk) 18:06, 10 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Just to clarify your comment - 96% of text borrowed from royalnavy-history.com was a name of vessels, thier tonnage, name of countries and cities, data. How you suggest this data can be " write your own text"? Like call 11 ships as 10? Thanks
 * It's nice - so you suggest when royalnavy-history.com mentioned Murmansk - they actually mentioned  Murmansk Oblast :)) How you reach such conclusion&  Could you give an exact citation of Philbin? ThanksJo0doe (talk) 19:02, 10 January 2010 (UTC)
 * I said they might mean Murmansk Oblast, or they might have made a mistake in writing Murmansk. I did not call 11 ships 10, I wrote 10 merchant ships and 1 supply tanker, which was the case. For one example of how to rewrite information so not to violate copyright, see what I did. Sure. Here's Philbin and here's Weinberg too. Manxruler (talk) 19:23, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

Lutzlow
Your recent edits, while well-intentioned, have been poorly carried out. to that end I have moved back to an earlier version and added back in some of your material a I have interpreted it. When adding material do not remove existing references, particularly when doing so in favour of foreign language sources which will be less accessible (both in getting access to and understanding) to English readers. GraemeLeggett (talk) 17:03, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

German–Soviet Credit Agreement (1939)
Regarding your latest edits:


 * 1) Please do not add long full-text documents. These belong on Wikisource. If some part is extremely relevant, then you can cite that part as a quote, but not the full document.
 * 2) Please do not cite primary documents. They will easily lead you into the prohibited WP:Original research. Please use reliable secondary sources that used the same primary documents to come up with the same conclusions.

Thanks, Renata (talk)
 * Guess - Pact of Steel? Schwendemann H. Die wirtschaftliche Zusamenarbeit zwischen dem Deutschen Reich und der Sowjetunion von 1938 bis 1941. Berlin, 1993 can be treated as such but it fails WP:V policy.ThanksJo0doe (talk) 16:03, 30 January 2010 (UTC)


 * Soviet Union supplied Germany with raw materials in exchange for German factory equipment, installations, machinery and machine tools, ships, vehicles, and other means of transport
 * Shortened version of what you inserted. No need for the entire list of stuffRenata (talk) 16:26, 30 January 2010 (UTC)
 * nor text inserted, nor Agreement text claims about Soviet Union supplied Germany with raw materials - its related to 1940 Agreement but not this oneJo0doe (talk) 21:41, 30 January 2010 (UTC)


 * worth 120 million Reichsmark
 * Refs [49][51][52] in the article.Renata (talk) 16:26, 30 January 2010 (UTC)
 * refs [49] - Ericson again misused Actually stated " the German would accept 200 million RM in new orders- I even not check other refs - it's a same story Jo0doe (talk) 21:41, 30 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Wow. Direct Quote: "In order to give the agreement a current   value for the Germans, the Soviet Union promised to deliver 180   million RM worth of raw materials over the next two years as part of   'current business', whereupon the Germans allowed Moscow to order   industrial goods for a further 120 million RM.  " (Wegner, p. 99)Mosedschurte (talk) 10:11, 31 January 2010 (UTC)
 * It's really sad to note such notable misuse the source text - so Wegner, p. 99

The Credit Agreement between the German Reich and the Union of the Soviet Socialist Republics gave the Soviet Union an acceptance credit of 200 million RM over 7 years with an affective interest rate of 4.5 percent. The credit line was to be used during the next two years for purchase of capital goods in Germany and was to be paid off by means of  Soviet material shipment from 1946 onwards. --Jo0doe (talk) 18:57, 31 January 2010 (UTC)
 * It was negotiated during from late 1938
 * Ref [15] in the article.Renata (talk) 16:26, 30 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Ericson again misused Jo0doe (talk) 21:41, 30 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Article: "However, German needs for military supplies and Soviet needs for military machinery increased after the Munich Agreement."
 * Definitely going to have to watch out for this editor after that whopper: Ericson Direct quotes (29-31): "A second factor in making an economic arrangement more likely was the  fallout of the Munich crisis of September 1938. . . .Furthermore, despite the bloodless successes in Austria and Czechoslovakia, Germany's economic situation continued to deteriorate, and expanded trade with the USSR appeared increasingly vital for Germany.  As a result of Germany's growing needs and the hope that Soviet desires to rebuild their military would mean an increased demand for German weapons and machines, the Germans returned in October once again to the idea of expanding economic ties between the two powers. . . . The truth, however, remained, as it had since April 1935, somewhere in between these two assessments. Hitler needed Soviet raw materials but would not permit large shipments of increasingly short supplies of weapons and machines to his ideological enemy and would not countenance the closer political relations that such trade would imply. The Soviets needed at least the possibility of a German alliance to make the West take more notice of Soviet interests and wanted German machines and weapons to rebuild the Soviet military and war economy as part of the next Five-Year Plan."Mosedschurte (talk) 10:11, 31 January 2010 (UTC)
 * May be you don't know but WP:SYN is not good approach - so proved  - you indeed missed in text - once again "to the idea of expanding economic''. once again meaning widelly explained at dozen of source--Jo0doe (talk) 18:57, 31 January 2010 (UTC)


 * You are using a bunch of document collections. That's awesome if you are a historian and you are researching something for your these/book. But that's not acceptable if you are a Wikipedian. You need secondary sources.
 * It's a secondary sources- only important documents selected by bunch of Authors, commented and and again I can add dozen of works - but I think - Washington, D.C.: U.S. Gov. Printing Office - is much more usefull per no copyright restriction. While Schwendemann H. Die wirtschaftliche Zusamenarbeit zwischen dem Deutschen Reich und der Sowjetunion von 1938 bis 1941. Berlin, 1993 - it's not a document collectionsJo0doe (talk) 21:41, 30 January 2010 (UTC)


 * Pact of Steel is a neglected article that needs a lot of work. You should not be using it as an example for anything. Renata (talk) 16:26, 30 January 2010 (UTC)
 * nominate them as such. Text of agreement fairly short - Jo0doe (talk) 21:41, 30 January 2010 (UTC)

Gangut and Poltava
You made the exact same edit describing a collision between these two ships. Which ships were damaged in which way? They both couldn't have damaged their kedge anchors. Thanks for providing the page number, though.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 21:34, 30 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Not exactly but I would be greatifull for rewording - Gangut - made a hole at Poltava aft above waterline, and damage Poltava kedge anchors.Own damage of Gangut not given in source provided Jo0doe (talk) 21:48, 30 January 2010 (UTC)

Blocked again
I'm sorry it took me so long to react to your dispute with User:Faustian which you debated on my talk page. I have now reviewed some of your edits, and as a result I am blocking you again. The reason is mainly that despite some efforts I simply couldn't understand what this dispute was about – and this, in turn, is mainly because unfortunately your English is too poor to engage in a meaningful constructive debate on such difficult issues. I'm not actually saying I find your editing intentionally disruptive or tendentious – but because of your poor English skills, your editing in the topic area of Ukrainian WWII history ultimately does have disruptive effects. Also, article edits like this clearly degrade article quality. This, combined with the problems you have had in the past, tells me your presence here on Wikipedia is not a net positive to the project. Fut.Perf. ☼ 14:04, 28 February 2010 (UTC)
 * I’m really sorry for my English – but it hampered due the German, Polish and Byelorussian influence which I’ve add in addition to my Ukrainian, Russian, French ability to read as lot sources as possible. While I guess why significant expanding of the article, adding 3 books, 11 scholar references, 4 online refs – this -is “clearly degrade article quality”. Spelling can be fixed by anyone – even without messing with dozens of sources. Thank you Jo0doe (talk) 08:30, 1 March 2010 (UTC)
 * P.S. If you couldn't understand what this dispute was about - you need just to ask for explanation. Thank youJo0doe (talk) 08:30, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

File copyright problem with File:Gangutaft120plutong.jpg
Thank you for uploading File:Gangutaft120plutong.jpg. However, it currently is missing information on its copyright status. Wikipedia takes copyright very seriously. It may be deleted soon, unless we can determine the license and the source of the file. If you know this information, then you can add a copyright tag to the image description page.

If you have uploaded other files, consider checking that you have specified their license and tagged them, too. You can find a list of files you have uploaded by following this link.

If you have any questions, please feel free to ask them at the media copyright questions page. Thanks again for your cooperation. --> -->

Orphaned non-free image File:1942ukrpoljudeakt.jpg
 Thanks for uploading File:1942ukrpoljudeakt.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 "file" 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 "File" 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. Skier Dude ( talk  03:45, 10 September 2010 (UTC)

-Missed a right section for placing a license tag - fixed. Thanks for noticeJo0doe (talk) 06:46, 10 September 2010 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free image File:30061941modtext.jpg
 Thanks for uploading File:30061941modtext.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 "file" 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 "File" 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. Skier Dude ( talk  03:46, 10 September 2010 (UTC)

-Missed a right section for placing a license tag - fixed. Thanks for noticeJo0doe (talk) 06:46, 10 September 2010 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free image File:30061941shept.jpg
 Thanks for uploading File:30061941shept.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 "file" 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 "File" 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. Skier Dude ( talk  03:46, 10 September 2010 (UTC)

-Missed a right section for placing a license tag - fixed. Thanks for noticeJo0doe (talk) 06:47, 10 September 2010 (UTC)

RE
Dear Jo0doe, I will be happy to help you. --Paweł5586 (talk) 12:36, 10 September 2010 (UTC)

Hi, sorry I got now many works to do, I cant help you now:(--Paweł5586 (talk) 06:39, 15 September 2010 (UTC) Not a problem -anyway your will to help is sincere.Jo0doe (talk) 11:55, 15 September 2010 (UTC)

Replaceable fair use File:Kuleshovka1857.jpg
Thanks for uploading File:Kuleshovka1857.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 or which could be adequately covered with text alone. 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. Melesse (talk) 22:02, 12 September 2010 (UTC)
 * See here an explanation:) It's 1857 year (not typing mistake). It's PD-Old Jo0doe (talk) 05:44, 13 September 2010 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free media (File:UIAanthem1943.jpg)
Thanks for uploading File:UIAanthem1943.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 'file' 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 "File" 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. Melesse (talk) 20:22, 16 September 2010 (UTC)

“The Shukhevych Cult: Myth-making with Complications”
Where did you find this essay? --Львівське (talk) 07:48, 21 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Per Anders Rudling from University of Alberta send me it. Also distributed for participants at Historical Memory in Contemporary Ukraine An international conference September 23–26, 2009 Kyiv. ThanksJo0doe (talk) 08:22, 21 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Is it available on any journal archives or the like? Can I get a copy?--Львівське (talk) 21:27, 21 September 2010 (UTC)
 * According to this it is not supposed to be cited without permission from the author.Faustian (talk) 13:22, 21 September 2010 (UTC)
 * I've got a permission from him for wiki.Jo0doe (talk) 16:09, 21 September 2010 (UTC)
 * IS there a proof of that?--Galassi (talk) 16:19, 21 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Try to ask PerJo0doe (talk) 16:26, 21 September 2010 (UTC)
 * The burden of that ison YOU.--Galassi (talk) 16:46, 21 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Will be send at any WP:OTRS member request, Also paper version distributed for participants at Historical Memory in Contemporary Ukraine An international conference September 23–26, 2009 Kyiv does not have such kind of restriction. Any source for Chuyev?Jo0doe (talk) 17:44, 21 September 2010 (UTC)

Sockpuppetry case
Your name has been mentioned in connection with a sockpuppetry case. Please refer to Sockpuppet investigations/Jo0doe for evidence. Please make sure you make yourself familiar with the guide to responding to cases before editing the evidence page. Львівське (talk) 19:06, 23 September 2010 (UTC)

Image tagging for File:BanderaOUNPeoplemilitiauniform1941.jpg
Thanks for uploading File:BanderaOUNPeoplemilitiauniform1941.jpg. You don't seem to have said where the image came from or who created it. We require this information to verify that the image is legally usable on Wikipedia, and because most image licenses require giving credit to the image's creator.

To add this information, click on this link, then click "Edit this page" and add the information to the image's description. If you need help, post your question on Media copyright questions.

For more information on using images, see the following pages:
 * Image use policy
 * Image copyright tags

Thank you for your cooperation. --ImageTaggingBot (talk) 11:06, 4 October 2010 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of Ukrainian People's Militia


The article Ukrainian People's Militia has been proposed for deletion&#32; because of the following concern:
 * No such unit exists; article created by known propagandist relying on obscure non-english sources

While all contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, content or articles may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the  notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. Removing  will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. The speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. Львівське (talk) 23:42, 5 October 2010 (UTC)

Ukrainian People's Militia listed at Redirects for discussion
An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect Ukrainian People&. Since you had some involvement with the Ukrainian People's Militia redirect, you might want to participate in the redirect discussion (if you have not already done so). Львівське (talk) 01:38, 6 October 2010 (UTC)

Nomination of Ukrainian People's Militia for deletion
A discussion has begun about whether the article Ukrainian People's Militia, which you created or to which you contributed, should be deleted. While contributions are welcome, an article may be deleted if it is inconsistent with Wikipedia policies and guidelines for inclusion, explained in the deletion policy.

The article will be discussed at Articles for deletion/Ukrainian People's Militia until a consensus is reached, and you are welcome to contribute to the discussion.

You may edit the article during the discussion, including to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion template from the top of the article. Львівське (talk) 03:16, 6 October 2010 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free image File:BanderaOUNPeoplemilitiauniform1941.jpg
 Thanks for uploading File:BanderaOUNPeoplemilitiauniform1941.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).

PLEASE NOTE:


 * I am a bot, and will therefore not be able to answer your questions.
 * I will remove the request for deletion if the file is used in an article once again.
 * If you receive this notice after the image is deleted, and you want to restore the image, click here to file an un-delete request.
 * To opt out of these bot messages, add  to your talk page.
 * If you believe the bot has made an error, please turn it off here and leave a message on my owner's talk page.

Thank you. DASHBot (talk) 05:37, 9 October 2010 (UTC)

File source and copyright licensing problem with File:30061941rep-p4.jpg
Thanks for uploading File:30061941rep-p4.jpg. I noticed that the file's description page currently doesn't specify who created the content, so the copyright status is unclear. If you did not create this file yourself, you will need to specify the owner of the copyright. If you obtained it from a website, then a link to the website from which it was taken, together with a restatement of that website's terms of use of its content, is usually sufficient information. However, if the copyright holder is different from the website's publisher, their copyright should also be acknowledged.

As well as adding the source, we also need to know the terms of the license that the copyright holder has published the file under, usually done by adding a licensing tag. If you created/took the picture, audio, or video then the GFDL-self tag can be used to release it under the GFDL. If you believe the media meets the criteria at Non-free content, use a tag such as or one of the other tags listed at Image copyright tags. See Image copyright tags for the full list of copyright tags that you can use.

If you have uploaded other files, consider checking that you have specified their source and tagged them, too. You can find a list of files you have created [ in your upload log]. Unsourced and untagged files may be deleted one week after they have been tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If the file is copyrighted under a non-free license (per Fair use) then the file will be deleted 48 hours after 19:53, 9 October 2010 (UTC). If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Львівське (talk) 19:53, 9 October 2010 (UTC)
 * PD-Ukraine and PD -Poland. ThanksJo0doe (talk) 11:42, 11 October 2010 (UTC)

I filed on AE on your behavior
See here: .Faustian (talk) 15:05, 20 October 2010 (UTC)

Email
I am not going to answer your email, because I can't do it without revealing my email address, which would reveal my real name, and I prefer not to do that. In any case, I don't see how a draft of a document would be a usable source, regardless of whether you have permission to use it. Looie496 (talk) 17:02, 21 October 2010 (UTC)

201 Schutzmannschaft Battalion
Hi. I've nominated 201 Schutzmannschaft Battalion, an article you worked on, for consideration to appear on the Main Page as part of Did you know. You can see the hook for the article here, where you can improve it if you see fit. — Malik Shabazz Talk/Stalk 02:53, 22 October 2010 (UTC) on behalf of User:Piotrus

Block
To enforce an arbitration decision, you have been blocked from editing for a period of 1 year for violating the WP:DIGWUREN discretionary sanctions. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions. If you believe this block is unjustified, please read the guide to appealing arbitration enforcement blocks and follow the instructions there to appeal your block. Looie496 (talk) 20:34, 23 October 2010 (UTC) Notice to administrators: In a 2010 decision, the Committee held that "Administrators are prohibited from reversing or overturning (explicitly or in substance) any action taken by another administrator pursuant to the terms of an active arbitration remedy, and explicitly noted as being taken to enforce said remedy, except: (a) with the written authorization of the Committee, or (b) following a clear, substantial, and active consensus of uninvolved editors at a community discussion noticeboard (such as WP:AN or WP:ANI). If consensus in such discussions is hard to judge or unclear, the parties should submit a request for clarification on the proper page. Any administrator that overturns an enforcement action outside of these circumstances shall be subject to appropriate sanctions, up to and including desysopping, at the discretion of the Committee."
 * And, for the reasons I have outlined in my comment at the AE thread, I have extended the block to run indefinitely as a community-based sanction. The indefinite block runs concurrently with the original 1-year AE block, which remains in effect. T. Canens (talk) 23:48, 23 October 2010 (UTC)

Hmm, As far as I can understood from the text suggested – a very, very serious allegations  (in scholar community) in the source falsifying/ misrepresenting  told often enough becomes the truth. Specifically mentioned the book intended for researchers, Universities tutors and students

In scholar community such allegation arisen extremely rare and only after very, very careful examinations of the issues and facts by specially appointed commissions. Since WP is not – I just would like to obtain a comments by parties which imposed sanctions So it would be nice to confirm that the text.

German Zonderkomando "4"b personnel, together with Ukrainian militia, inline to the scheme fulfilled in other cities, began to round up local Jews to the citadel. Of course, they were beaten and abused and later were murdered - at page 350 does not exist at text in Ukrainian translation of which appeared above

A text (from scholar text Summary section)

"Can be stated that in shooting of the Polish professors and execution of the Lwow Jewish population in July 1941 took part Ukrainians and Ukrainian spoken Volskdeutsches the members of the Ukrainian militia." - at page 398 does not exist at text in Ukrainian translation of which appeared above

And this excerpt from primary source (mentioned at scholar text  under 3833 – claims that were the very opposite of what the text added to article  was actually describing. Comments from a sanction imposed parties expected. Thank youJo0doe (talk) 11:01, 25 October 2010 (UTC)

Arbitration enforcement action appeal by Jo0doe (talk) 13:34, 5 November 2010 (UTC)
''Procedural notes: The rules governing arbitration enforcement appeals are found in this 2010 ArbCom motion. According to that motion, a "clear, substantial, and active consensus of uninvolved editors" is required to overturn an arbitration enforcement action. To help determine any such consensus, involved editors may make brief statements in separate sections but should not edit the section for discussion among uninvolved editors. Editors are normally considered involved if they are in a current dispute with the sanctioning or sanctioned editor, or have taken part in disputes (if any) related to the contested enforcement action. Administrators having taken administrative actions are not normally considered involved for this reason alone (see WP:UNINVOLVED).''


 * Appealing user : – Jo0doe (talk) 13:34, 5 November 2010 (UTC)


 * Sanction being appealed : Arbitration enforcement: WP:DIGWUREN: 1 year block and concurrent indef. block


 * Administrator imposing the sanction :


 * Notification of that administrator : The appealing editor is asked to notify the administrator who made the enforcement action of this appeal, and then to replace this text with a diff of that notification. The appeal may not be processed otherwise. If a block is appealed, the editor moving the appeal to this board should make the notification.

Statement by Jo0doe (talk) 13:34, 5 November 2010 (UTC)
I’ve not involved into editing of the “all pages relating to Holodomor, broadly construed since 2008”- thus I can not physically violate the WP:DIGWUREN discretionary sanctions imposed over my account in 2008. I also strictly followed suggested policy - "to edit carefully, to adopt Wikipedia's communal approaches (including appropriate conduct, dispute resolution, neutral point of view, no original research and verifiability - -   -  –


 * Non-English source text – intended for graduated in history scholars cannot be judged by the determination based on Google translation  . Exact citations given here  – please clarify does text cited contradict with  - given at WP:AE  as falsified/mistranslated example. I hope admin which review my request also can easily read typed in 1941 -1942 texts   (which provide similar facts as in text in question]–to fairly judge my request.
 * If there no admin which able read Ukrainian and got a suggested by book scholar degree – I can recommend to check available English scholar works on topic – - pages 292, 349-55

page 59 page 8 which suggest similar to facts added which mentioned at WP:AE as an example of the as falsified/mistranslated text.
 * I kindly ask to clarify the sanction applied – if I actually falsify/misrepresent the facts (i.e. OUN Ukrainian militia actually does not took part in round-ups of Jews for mass executions and not participate in it, not escorted Jews to their forced labor sites ... etc,) (as added to WP and suggested by sources mentioned above) – I agreed with sanction applied – If the sources support the texts added – please withdraw the sanctions applied.


 * If there were any other instances of the “falsified/mistranslated examples” which can be also arisen and need to be clarified with sources– I can provide on request a copies of books pages (if there no online book available) and also primary sources (like or ThanksJo0doe (talk) 13:34, 5 November 2010 (UTC)


 * Initially There was a consensus about “misrepresenting sources” “that others describe as falsifying the sources”
 * Now it was a consensus about “lacking the necessary English language communication skills”

– So the reason of 1 year block extended indefinite under WP:DIGWURREN remains unexplained -  and I kindly ask to clarify – does the request   was filled /and block applied because of  “lacking the necessary English language” or because diffs    were judged “misrepresenting sources” and “that others describe as falsifying the sources” (i.e. English scholar texts mentioned above and the text

''In late June and July 1941 OUN militias and “Sich” organizations went on a rampage in Galicia, Northern Bukovina, and Volhynia, killing Jews primarily, but also some Poles and communists. Sometimes these militias did not do the killing themselves, but rounded up the victims for Germans and Romanians to execute by firing squad.'' is falsifying ? In other words - the someone from the participants depicted at p.307  were engaged in“misrepresenting sources” “that others describe as falsifying the sources”. Clarification for the block reason would nice.Jo0doe (talk) 13:07, 10 November 2010 (UTC)

Result of the appeal by Jo0doe (talk) 13:34, 5 November 2010 (UTC)

 * This section is to be edited only by uninvolved administrators. Comments by others will be moved to the sections above.


 * I have moved this request to WP:AE. T. Canens (talk) 22:11, 8 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Thank you - could you kindly clarify - per this statement - "the issue" with " tendentious editing based on interpretations of Ukrainian sources that other Ukrainian speakers say are incorrect" - does it mean that the issue actually exist i.e. available English scholar works (text)on topic – - pages 292, 349-55

page 59 page 8 and page 8 (bottom) - 9 top are incorrect and tendentious - and imposed sanctions party carefully check it and "Ukrainian sources" and found "other Ukrainian speakers" supposition as correct? Does "other Ukrainian speakers" - only those 3 editors which refuse to explain and provide a source here - Note: This file ? Thank youJo0doe (talk) 10:09, 9 November 2010 (UTC)

DYK for 201 Schutzmannschaft Battalion
The DYK project (nominate) 18:03, 24 October 2010 (UTC)

Nomination of Ukrainian People's Militia for deletion
A discussion has begun about whether the article Ukrainian People's Militia, which you created or to which you contributed, should be deleted. While contributions are welcome, an article may be deleted if it is inconsistent with Wikipedia policies and guidelines for inclusion, explained in the deletion policy.

The article will be discussed at Articles for deletion/Ukrainian People's Militia until a consensus is reached, and you are welcome to contribute to the discussion.

You may edit the article during the discussion, including to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion template from the top of the article. Львівське (talk) 08:34, 25 November 2010 (UTC)


 * 

"10.08.1941 р. в неділю, на площі Адама Міцквича відбулося урочисте прийняття членів Української народної міліції (УНМ) в ряди служби безпеки (Sicherheitsdienst). До присутніх міліціонерів (приблизно 300 чол.) та їхнього командування, з трибуни промовив комендант Gestapo міста та всієї округи гауптштурмфюрер SS Ганс Крюгер. Привітанням «Слава Україні!» він розпочав свою промову в якій вказав на тяжке та відповідальне завдання служби безпеки, апелював до почуття обов’язку й точності, підкреслив велику працю німців та досвід, який українська міліція зможе відтепер засвоїти, зокрема, коли вона в деякій мірі складається із старшин колишньої Української Армії. Приймаючи українську міліцію в ряди служби безпеки, комендант Gestapo видав перший наказ про поздоровлення та закінчив свою промову словами «Sieg Heil!». Потім коли оркестр відіграв німецький гімн, українському командуванню міліції було роздано нові опаски, після чого комендант разом з представниками обласної міліції прийняв дефіляду. Після закінчення дефіляди діти обдарували коменданта китицями квітів. Трибуна була прикрашена українськими та німецькими прапорами. Було також багато української публіки. (газета «Українське слово», середа, 13.08.1941 р.)"

"«Кожний жид чи жидівка старші віком над 12 років обов’язані на вулицях, дорогах і прилюдних місцях носити на правому рамені, на верхньому одягу, 10 см широку опаску виразної жовтої краски. Жидів, які появляться після 4 серпня 1941 р. без опаски покарається примусовою роботою, а за другим разом інтернуванням в таборі праці. За чистоту опаски відповідає власник». (газета «Українське Слово», вівторок, 29.07.1941 р.)"

«Відозва до Українського населення в Станиславові 1. На підставі розпорядження Генерального Губернатора, буде організована українська помічна міліція. 2. Всі здібні мущини української національності в віку від 20 до 38 років можуть зголоситися із своїми документами в «Kommando der Schutzpolizei» в Станіславові вул. Собіського ч. 15 а. 3. Ближчі умови, бажаючі одержать при зголошенні». (газета Українське слово, неділя, 24.08.1941 р.) Jo0doe (talk) 15:51, 27 November 2010 (UTC)

Sockpuppetry case
Your name has been mentioned in connection with a sockpuppetry case. Please refer to Sockpuppet investigations/Jo0doe for evidence. Please make sure you make yourself familiar with the guide to responding to cases before editing the evidence page. Львівське (talk) 09:59, 3 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Thanks - and The Ukrainian People's Militia did not exist. -  - I guess - IP is from Canada - mine is 12 000 miles Eastward. ThanksJo0doe (talk) 15:19, 3 December 2010 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free image File:1939UkrSSR.JPG
 Thanks for uploading File:1939UkrSSR.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 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).

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. Skier Dude2 (talk) 05:37, 15 June 2011 (UTC)

Possibly unfree File:Stetskoberlinag1941.jpg
A file that you uploaded or altered, File:Stetskoberlinag1941.jpg, has been listed at Possibly unfree files because its copyright status is unclear or disputed. If the file's copyright status cannot be verified, it may be deleted. You may find more information on the file description page. You are welcome to add comments to its entry at if you are interested in it not being deleted. Thank you. Stefan2 (talk) 22:31, 22 July 2012 (UTC)

Possibly unfree File:UkrainianSRRmap1933.JPG
A file that you uploaded or altered, File:UkrainianSRRmap1933.JPG, has been listed at Possibly unfree files because its copyright status is unclear or disputed. If the file's copyright status cannot be verified, it may be deleted. You may find more information on the file description page. You are welcome to add comments to its entry at if you object to the listing for any reason. Thank you. Kelly hi! 02:18, 13 November 2015 (UTC)

File copyright problem with File:GalSSestact.gif
Thank you for uploading File:GalSSestact.gif. However, it is currently missing information on its copyright and licensing status. Wikipedia takes copyright very seriously. It may be deleted soon, unless we can verify that it has an acceptable license status and a verifiable source. Please add this information by editing the image description page. You may refer to the image use policy to learn what files you can or cannot upload on Wikipedia. The page on copyright tags may help you to find the correct tag to use for your file. If the file is already gone, you can still make a request for undeletion and ask for a chance to fix the problem.

Please also check any other files you may have uploaded to make sure they are correctly tagged. Here is [ a list of your uploads].

If you have any questions, please feel free to ask them at the media copyright questions page. Thanks again for your cooperation.

This bot DID NOT nominate any file(s) for deletion; please refer to the page history of each individual file for details. Thanks, FastilyBot (talk) 01:01, 31 January 2021 (UTC)