Archive 1 Archive 2 Archive 3

Nationalism and antisemitismEdit

Your reasoning contains a logical fallacy of the false dilemma type. It's not like there were only two possibilities for Ukrainian nationalists, either cooperate with the Germans and kill the Jews to get independence or nothing. In fact similar proposal were made by the Nazi Germans to the Polish resistance during the war but were flatly refused. As for Himka well I don't have a particular problem with his statement that Anti-Semitims was not the core of Ukrainian nationalism however since that is included then it is intellectually honest that some of the things that Hedviberit presented on the talk page is included as well.  Dr. Loosmark  16:58, 16 March 2010 (UTC)

Stuff like the other stuff is mentioned. The full info belongs in the OUN article.Faustian (talk) 02:30, 17 March 2010 (UTC)
I don't know if you are active on ukr-wiki, but look at http://uk.wikipedia.org/wiki/%D0%A1%D0%BF%D0%B5%D1%86%D1%96%D0%B0%D0%BB%D1%8C%D0%BD%D0%B0:Contributions/Nikkolo , if you want/could do some good there. There is not enough editors and admins to deal with the problem. At least one admin is proHDenial. --Galassi (talk) 19:39, 29 August 2010 (UTC)

Merge request - Rimini listEdit

Hi

Sorry to bother you but I just wondered if you though this might be the right approach ... Talk:Rimini List

thanks

Chaosdruid (talk) 09:04, 6 June 2010 (UTC)

It's no bother, but I have no opinion. Sorry I couldn't help!Faustian (talk) 03:26, 13 June 2010 (UTC)

Reliable source?Edit

Re this addition. I cannot verify that the book even exists. I can't find ISBN, etc. I would seem that it would not be a reliable or verifiable source. Even if the book turned out to be legit, I am extremely skeptical about the claim. Medieval noble families tried to improve their ancestry by creating imaginative genealogical links between them and some famous ruler. I would be very careful, without support in other sources. Thus I removed the claim. Renata (talk) 16:54, 12 June 2010 (UTC)

You are correct, and the info is listed as a claim, not The Truth (I'll reword it). It doesn't seem too controversial, as it is corroborated by another (some 17th century Polish chronicler) source describing Huyd's wife as a "close relative" of Shvarn.Faustian (talk) 02:02, 13 June 2010 (UTC)
There is a photo of the book here (scroll down). More is here. If the claim was particularly contentious I would agree, but there is that other referenced bit of info...Faustian (talk) 02:11, 13 June 2010 (UTC)
Any genealogical claim that goes back to 13th century and is based only on a 17th century chronicle is garbage. I spent a lot of time and energy weeding out such mythological claims for this and other articles. There are entire dynasties in Lithuanian genealogy (see Palemonids) that never existed and were simply dreamed up to improve somebody's pedigree. Such myths persisted in history books for centuries and only serious scholarly effort weeded them out. Thus I am strongly against including any claim not backed up by contemporary sources. The red flag here should be that none of contemporary (i.e. 13-14th century sources about Mindaugas, Shvarn, etc) talk about any such marriage.
My other big concern is the book itself. It does not seem to be scholarly, to have ISBN, or to be in any libraries. Its author also does not appear in search results. It seems neither reliable (amateurish attempt at genealogy?) and verifiable (impossible to find). So unless you can find some other, scholarly and verifiable, source I am going to remove it.
Also, please be careful with reverts. You reverted a ton of good changes while trying to re-introduce the material. Renata (talk) 04:17, 13 June 2010 (UTC)
The author has other books about that family that do have ISBN numbers, see here. Here is the publisher's website. It would be inappropriate to weed out legendary claims, even if by 17th century chroniclers, as they are also notable in and of themselves although they should be labeled as such and it would be inappropriate to include them as if they are indesutable facts. Rather than simply unilaterally remove info isn't it better to go through a process? I am moving this conversation to the article's talk page.Faustian (talk) 13:19, 13 June 2010 (UTC)

Reviewer grantedEdit

You have been granted the 'reviewer' userright, allowing you to to review other users' edits on certain flagged pages. Pending changes, also known as flagged protection, will be commencing a a two-month trial at approximately 23:00, 2010 June 15 (UTC).

Reviewers can review edits made by users who are not autoconfirmed to articles placed under flagged protection. Flagged protection is applied to only a small number of articles, similarly to how semi-protection is applied but in a more controlled way for the trial.

When reviewing, edits should be accepted if they are not obvious vandalism or BLP violations, and not clearly problematic in light of the reason given for protection (see Wikipedia:Reviewing process). More detailed documentation and guidelines can be found here.

If you do not want this userright, you may ask any administrator to remove it for you at any time. –xenotalk 13:32, 15 June 2010 (UTC)

Thanks!Faustian (talk) 13:49, 15 June 2010 (UTC)


Чи зможеш будьласка перевірити Polish Auxiliary Police. Дякую. Bandurist (talk) 15:08, 15 June 2010 (UTC)

It could use some minor clean-up but looks like a good article.Faustian (talk) 15:21, 15 June 2010 (UTC)

rudling articleEdit

how did you get it? --Львівське (talk) 05:05, 22 September 2010 (UTC)

I googled it and viewed it as a HTML. Here is the link: [1].Faustian (talk) 12:32, 22 September 2010 (UTC)
Thanks man--Львівське (talk) 03:19, 23 September 2010 (UTC)

Russian narrative myths vs. Ukrainian narrativeEdit

Outside of the Holodomor, Poltava (Mezepa et al.), and say the whole UPA/OUN Nazi stuff, are there any other instances of historical disagreement between the Kremlin / neo-Soviet school and the western or Ukrainian schools? --Львівське (talk) 05:07, 22 September 2010 (UTC)

The Pereyaslav treaty come to mind. Russian and Ukrainian myth-makers seem to generally agree on the narrative of Polish persecution against Ukrainians prior to Khmelyntsky's uprising, though.Faustian (talk) 17:34, 22 September 2010 (UTC)
Hm, true. I wrote about that once but tied it into Poltava, I guess a research paper could be done on Pereyaslav in of itself as well / cossack autonomy and its place in the empire. Just scratching my head trying to find more discrepancies and cant believe I'm stuck on these when there are so many disputes about "unifying the history books" and all that. There's got to be more dirt --Львівське (talk) 03:55, 23 September 2010 (UTC)

JoDoeEdit

How long will this madness go on for?--Львівське (talk) 15:20, 29 September 2010 (UTC)

More here http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ukrainian_People's_Militia --Galassi (talk) 03:58, 5 October 2010 (UTC)
Hi m8 - hope all is well with you
Just been looking over some of his work from the last few weeks and had to take action on a couple. Don't think you are alone...
I will keep monitoring things as usual ...
It is a shame that he cannot get involved with other things besides just Ukrainian WWII articles, but as he and pawel5586 seem to be getting more and more bold I suppose we will just have to pay more attention to their edits.
Can someone with more UPA/OUN experience have a look at the articles: Vsevolod Petrov Ivan Hrynokh Yaroslav Stetsko and Lviv pogroms
I will copy this to the Ukraine and Milhist (where necessary) forums also.
Chaosdruid (talk) 18:23, 5 October 2010 (UTC)
I'll take a closer look at them but since the sources he uses are not in English, it's hard for me to verify them or fact check. I'll be doing a lot of research over the next several weeks on the OUN/UPA so I'll gladly look into certain things while doing this, but like I said, it's hard to check joe/pawel when they refuse to use legit sources.--Львівське (talk) 23:48, 5 October 2010 (UTC)
He's back: Bergbauernhilfe --Львівське (talk) 07:54, 12 October 2010 (UTC)
He's been replaced with another character of a similar nature: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/Voyevoda , fresh off a 6mos ban.--Galassi (talk) 01:31, 29 October 2010 (UTC)
 
Hello, Faustian. Please check your email; you've got mail!
It may take a few minutes from the time the email is sent for it to show up in your inbox. You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{You've got mail}} or {{ygm}} template.

Nomination of Ukrainian People's Militia for deletionEdit

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 Wikipedia: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. Bridgeplayer (talk) 03:58, 6 October 2010 (UTC)

Massacre of Lviv professorsEdit

My grandfather was among the murdered professors in the Lwow massacre. I strongly advise you against attempting to reinstate that ugly defamation of his memory. J.kunikowski (talk) 23:49, 19 October 2010 (UTC)

It is a referenced fact. Perhaps we can word it in a more sensitive way for you?Faustian (talk) 03:22, 20 October 2010 (UTC)
I see that it's been reworded somewhat.Faustian (talk) 03:25, 20 October 2010 (UTC)
I've written a note on the article's talk page, here, to hopefully clarify things.Faustian (talk) 03:58, 20 October 2010 (UTC)
"A referenced fact"? Just because somebody claims something it is not a fact. You tried to portray the murdered professors as collaborationist which is appalling. I don't want you to reword those insults, I want you to remove them at once. J.kunikowski (talk) 12:42, 20 October 2010 (UTC)
Thank you for your opinion. The discussion is on the article's talk page, if you would like to contribute to it.Faustian (talk) 12:43, 20 October 2010 (UTC)

Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there currently is a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. GiftigerWunsch [BODY DOUBLE] 16:44, 20 October 2010 (UTC)

HalloEdit

I would rather want them to stay, since they will be of interest to the editor debating the issue. Also I would welcome your response to the questions regarding the content and sourcing of the publication(which are at odds with other sources showing political non-involvment of the victims).--MyMoloboaccount (talk) 16:31, 22 October 2010 (UTC)

I can address them but that section should be for uninvolved editors, not us.Faustian (talk) 16:35, 22 October 2010 (UTC)

HiEdit

I would really welcome if you would concentrate on articles and their content. There is no need to be incivil and I hope that we can work together in friendly atmosphere to create better articles. Thank you. --MyMoloboaccount (talk) 18:37, 24 October 2010 (UTC)

I would like that too and have generally been civil.Faustian (talk) 22:48, 24 October 2010 (UTC)

ReportEdit

[2]--Jacurek (talk) 19:31, 25 October 2010 (UTC)

Massacres of Poles in VolhyniaEdit

Hey. I was doing some reading and (apparently I didn't clue in before) it came to light that during this event, Poles also engaged in ethnic cleansing and killing of civilians, and that there's debate over who threw the first stone. Since both sides engaged in the same actions against eachother, do you think the article as a whole, and its title, should reflect the event as a mutual conflict? And not just the Polish narrative/aspect of events? From what I've read, 20,000 Ukrainians were also killed by Poles, which is a substantial number, and I don't get why this fact is relegated to a minor note. Considering that if I were to start an article by itself about the Polish actions, the history/background would be identical and it would involve a lot of material from the original article....should the 'Massacres' article evolve or should a separate article be made and eventually be required to merge since it would be so similar? --Львівське (talk) 05:49, 5 November 2010 (UTC)

Lvov AbbreviationsEdit

In your edits of the article on Lvov please remember that according to the Wikipedia:Manual of Style#Acronyms and abbreviations no full stop is commonly preferred in British and other usage with abbreviations. So please do not put pg. 42, please use p42 instead.--Toddy1 (talk) 12:47, 5 November 2010 (UTC)

Sorry, I'm used to American guidelines. Does wikipedia prefer British usage? If so I'll try to switch over. I've published academic works using the style I use here, so I apologise in advance if I absent-mindedly forget. Habits are hard to break....Faustian (talk) 13:02, 5 November 2010 (UTC)

HolodomorEdit

Not sure how interested you are in the topic but the article is becoming under siege from some neo-Soviet POV pushers, just a heads up --Львівське (talk) 05:04, 11 November 2010 (UTC)

Happy Faustian's Day!Edit

Faustian has been identified as an Awesome Wikipedian,
so I've officially declared today as Faustian's Day!
For being a great person and awesome Wikipedian,
enjoy being the star of the day, Faustian!

Signed, Neutralhomer

A record of your Day will always be kept here.

For a userbox you can add to your userbox page, click here. Have a Great Day...NeutralhomerTalk • 05:34, 16 November 2010 (UTC)

The above is on behalf of User:Rlevse. - NeutralhomerTalk • 05:34, 16 November 2010 (UTC)
Thank you!Faustian (talk) 13:47, 16 November 2010 (UTC)

HolodomorEdit

Hello

An important sour ce about the victims of the Holodomor is the following study :

http://www.memory.gov.ua/data/upload/publication/main/ua/841/libanova.pdf

Best regards 90.2.91.168 (talk) 22:48, 25 November 2010 (UTC)

Hello

An interesting source for all death and birth comparison across the soviet union

http://www.famine.unimelb.edu.au/1928-33cdrcbr.php

I don't know if these figures are with corrected data provided by Libanova. Best regards 90.35.91.183 (talk) 22:38, 13 December 2010 (UTC)


Not going to throw your hat in on the mediation? I saw that you jumped in, and since you've participated in the past, figured I'd ask before the deadline came up--Львівське (говорити) 20:32, 22 October 2011 (UTC)

Image tagging for File:Lvivpogrom.jpgEdit

Thanks for uploading File:Lvivpogrom.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 the "Edit" tab at the top of the page and add the information to the image's description. If you need help, post your question on Wikipedia:Media copyright questions.

For more information on using images, see the following pages:

Thank you for your cooperation. --ImageTaggingBot (talk) 17:05, 3 January 2011 (UTC)

Blue Army (Poland)‎Edit

Please stop revert-warring with User:Hallersarmy. Instead of using terse edit summaries, please try to engage Hallersarmy on the article's Talk page. Thank you. — Malik Shabazz Talk/Stalk 03:36, 13 January 2011 (UTC)

What about being blocked due to the 3 reverts in a single day warning as I received?

Hallersarmy (talk) 04:30, 13 January 2011 (UTC)

Faustian hasn't made three reverts today. You just made your fourth. — Malik Shabazz Talk/Stalk 04:37, 13 January 2011 (UTC)
I just made my third and final revert. I did this only because I added comments to the talk page detailing my rationale for the moves being made. This revert consists primarily of just re-adding referenced material to relaible sources that are being removed.Faustian (talk) 05:23, 13 January 2011 (UTC)

Request for mediation rejectedEdit

The request for mediation concerning Example, to which you were listed as a party, has been declined. An explanation of why it has not been possible for this dispute to proceed to formal mediation is provided at the mediation request page (which will be deleted by an administrator after a reasonable time). Questions relating to the rejection of this dispute can be directed to the Committee chairperson or e-mailed to the mediation mailing list. For more information on other available steps in the dispute resolution process, see Wikipedia:Dispute resolution.

For the Mediation Committee, AGK 15:26, 15 January 2011 (UTC)
(Delivered by MediationBot, on behalf of the Mediation Committee.)

ПитанняEdit

Ви з України? 79.124.187.39 (talk) 19:46, 22 March 2011 (UTC)

Ні - з ЧікагоFaustian (talk) 00:23, 23 March 2011 (UTC)

New articleEdit

I'm going to start a new article, but just wondering what you think it should be called. For the entirety of the Polish-Ukrainian conflict that encompassed the massacres of Poles in Volhynia, and Galicia, and also the 'retaliations'. What works best: "Polish-Ukrainian civil war" "Polish-Ukrainian conflict (1943-1947)" or "Polish-Ukrainian war (1943-1947)"?--Львівське (talk) 21:13, 1 April 2011 (UTC)

The middle one seems best and most nuetral. Good luck! I will help if I can, but am too busy to do so substantially.Faustian (talk) 23:23, 1 April 2011 (UTC)
Yeah, I asked Magocsi as well and he said "conflict" is the best descriptor of it. Snyder, among others, refer to it as a civil war several times (Piotrowski, obviously, says anyone who holds this view "doesn't know what they're talking about"), so I guess I'll include it in the lede. I wrote a paper on the subject recently, so to do the article I just need to port it over and reformat the refs, and remove any stuff relating to the thesis. It's already broken down with background and each side's actions, and a section on death toll, so it'll leapfrog the stub phase and be done pretty quick. Hopefully this article will alleviate the problems the 'massacres of poles' article brings when polish editors want to censor facts on its context, and it'll allow that article to get trimmed down and refocused.--Львівське (talk) 23:33, 1 April 2011 (UTC)

QuestionEdit

Can you weigh in? 1--Львівське (talk) 06:13, 7 April 2011 (UTC)

LetterEdit

Could you read this and this. I think its worth to know these facts. Redgards--Paweł5586 (talk) 07:22, 18 April 2011 (UTC)

The letter sounds reasonable to me. What's the point of it? Is there a wikipedia article about this debate and about the museum in Canada?Faustian (talk) 12:28, 18 April 2011 (UTC)

1907Edit

This may interest you - “An Unlikely Alliance: the 1907 Ukrainian-Jewish Electoral Coalition.” Yohanan Petrovsky-Shtern, History, et al. Nations and Nationalism 15 (3) 2009: 483-505. The authors examine the political alliance between Ukrainian and Jewish national activists in the 1907 Austrian elections. They find that, rather than treating each other as staunch enemies, the two sets of activists were able to overcome profound differences in order to form an electoral alliance that would forge a new paradigm in Ukrainian-Jewish relations.--Galassi (talk) 20:05, 22 June 2011 (UTC)

Thanks. Any links? I don't have access to an academic library.Faustian (talk) 22:15, 22 June 2011 (UTC)
You might want to ask YPS himself. He is approachable.--Galassi (talk) 23:06, 22 June 2011 (UTC)
Unrelated, but useful - http://www.istpravda.com.ua/articles/2011/06/23/43692/.--Galassi (talk) 11:38, 24 June 2011 (UTC)

Your editEdit

Is discussed here. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk to me 17:28, 4 September 2011 (UTC)

Thank you!Faustian (talk) 01:28, 5 September 2011 (UTC)

T:TDYKEdit

Thank you for creating Volhynia Experiment. Why not nominate such a good article at T:TDYK? --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk to me 17:04, 20 September 2011 (UTC)

That would be great! I just don't have time to figure out/relearn the steps involved with that now.Faustian (talk) 17:06, 20 September 2011 (UTC)
  Ukraine Barnstar
I give you this Ukraine Barnstar for writing Volhynia Experiment. A well written article that shines an interesting light on the building of Ukrainian statehood.
Yulia Romero • Talk to me! 17:52, 5 November 2011 (UTC)
Thank you!Faustian (talk) 15:49, 9 November 2011 (UTC)

Formal mediation has been requestedEdit

The Mediation Committee has received a request for formal mediation of the dispute relating to "Blue Army (Poland).". As an editor concerned in this dispute, you are invited to participate in the mediation. Mediation is a voluntary process which resolves a dispute over article content by facilitation, consensus-building, and compromise among the involved editors. After reviewing the request page, the formal mediation policy, and the guide to formal mediation, please indicate in the "party agreement" section whether you agree to participate. Because requests must be responded to by the Mediation Committee within seven days, please respond to the request by 28 November 2011.

Discussion relating to the mediation request is welcome at the case talk page. Thank you.
Message delivered by MediationBot (talk) on behalf of the Mediation Committee. 04:50, 21 November 2011 (UTC)

Request for mediation rejectedEdit

The request for formal mediation concerning Blue Army (Poland) 2, to which you were listed as a party, has been declined. To read an explanation by the Mediation Committee for the rejection of this request, see the mediation request page, which will be deleted by an administrator after a reasonable time. Please direct questions relating to this request to the Chairman of the Committee, or to the mailing list. For more information on forms of dispute resolution, other than formal mediation, that are available, see Wikipedia:Dispute resolution.

For the Mediation Committee, AGK [] 11:03, 21 November 2011 (UTC)
(Delivered by MediationBot, on behalf of the Mediation Committee.)

File:Basarab Olha-1-.jpg needs authorship informationEdit

Dear uploader:

The media file you uploaded as File:Basarab Olha-1-.jpg appears to be missing information as to its authorship (and or source), or if you did provide such information, it is confusing for others trying to make use of the image.

It would be appreciated if you would consider updating the file description page, to make the authorship of the media clearer.

Although some images may not need author information in obvious cases, (such where an applicable source is provided), authorship information aids users of the image, and helps ensure that appropriate credit is given (a requirement of some licenses).

  • If you created this media yourself, please consider explicitly including your user name, for which: {{subst:usernameexpand|Faustian}} will produce an appropriate expansion,
    or use the {{own}} template.
  • If this is an old image, for which the authorship is unknown or impossible to determine, please indicate this on the file description page.
If you have any questions please see Help:File page. Thank you. Sfan00 IMG (talk) 10:29, 24 December 2011 (UTC)

All that UPA jazzEdit

In regard to [3], I put {dubious} but perhaps {contradictory} would have made more sense? The problem I saw was (outside of there being no source) it was contradicting the previous sentence by stating Soviets were "the only major" concern. I guess with a source proving they were "the only" concern this would fly, but standing alone it sounded 'dubious' to me that Ukrainian reports were contradicting themselves. Perhaps changing the phrasing to read 'According to _______ ANOTHER major concern was.." would be less...conflicting?--Львівське (говорити) 22:12, 10 March 2012 (UTC)

I think it was fron Snyder's Reconstruction... which I don't have next to the computer here. Basically, the situation was quiet in 1942, other than Soviet partisans. The Polish underground were making some preparations but did not engage in any activities.Faustian (talk) 22:49, 10 March 2012 (UTC)
I'm having trouble finding it at quick glance, he never mentions "1942" specifically in the book a single time --Львівське (говорити) 22:01, 11 March 2012 (UTC)
I checked too and couldn't find it...I must have read it somewhere else....Faustian (talk) 23:27, 11 March 2012 (UTC)
wikireality.ru/wiki/%D0%A3%D0%BA%D1%80%D0%B0%D0%B8%D0%BD%D1%81%D0%BA%D0%B8%D0%B5_%D0%BD%D0%B0%D1%86%D0%B8%D0%BE%D0%BD%D0%B0%D0%BB%D0%B8%D1%81%D1%82%D1%8B --Galassi (talk) 23:41, 11 March 2012 (UTC)
That's crazy. Aren't there rules against doing that to editors (not to mention that I am opposed to nationalism of all forms, including Ukrainian - opposing Polish and Russian nationalism does not make one a Ukrainian nationalist)? Can something be done to remove that?Faustian (talk) 03:08, 12 March 2012 (UTC)
No. That's not Wikipedia. It is an entirely different organization devoted entirely to various forms of libel and outing, anti-semitic and anti-ukrainian, among other niceties.--Galassi (talk) 04:20, 12 March 2012 (UTC)
Well, I'm glad I've left all personal info off here. Faustian (talk) 04:47, 12 March 2012 (UTC)
WOW! Looking at the history, I see our old friend Jo0doe has found a new home. Yikes. --Львівське (говорити) 22:02, 14 March 2012 (UTC)
Is he also active on commons? If so, would his participation on that website be grounds for blocking on commons?22:13, 14 March 2012 (UTC)
Yep, still active, same ol' Jo0doe [4] --Львівське (говорити) 05:53, 15 March 2012 (UTC)
And apparently he was using Greyhood as a proxy to participate in the Holodomor mediation cabal?? [5] --Львівське (говорити) 05:55, 15 March 2012 (UTC)
Ask Fut.Perf if anything could done with such a proxy/meatpuppet canvassing.--Galassi (talk) 09:27, 15 March 2012 (UTC)



Can't tell if this is a POV edit or a legit removal, but was there support? Not too up on this topic in particular [6] --Львівське (говорити) 05:44, 4 April 2012 (UTC)

The statement has been unsourced for almost a year so we can't really object to its removal.Faustian (talk) 16:03, 4 April 2012 (UTC)

Dispute resolution surveyEdit

Dispute Resolution – Survey Invite


Hello Faustian. I am currently conducting a study on the dispute resolution processes on the English Wikipedia, in the hope that the results will help improve these processes in the future. Whether you have used dispute resolution a little or a lot, now we need to know about your experience. The survey takes around five minutes, and the information you provide will not be shared with third parties other than to assist in analyzing the results of the survey. No personally identifiable information will be released.

Please click HERE to participate.
Many thanks in advance for your comments and thoughts.


You are receiving this invitation because you have had some activity in dispute resolution over the past year. For more information, please see the associated research page. Steven Zhang DR goes to Wikimania! 02:14, 6 April 2012 (UTC)

Serious case of VandalismEdit

Hello, Faustian... it appears that you have made a very serious error in judgment! You re-added material that was collectively agreed upon as being inaccurate, you yourself stated so on the "Talk" page, and thus discredited your efforts... as now, it is very easy to prove that you (despite you many contributions to other Wiki pages) have a personal agenda. This also, can be grounds for temporary blocking of you profile, and I will make effort to bring this issue up to other users. --91.150.222.61 (talk) 12:12, 9 April 2012 (UTC)

Another anon from Poland being disruptive.Faustian (talk) 19:31, 9 April 2012 (UTC)
Wow, someone is showing signs of some serious anti-Polish bias... why, would it matter that someone is an "anon" from Poland, or any other country for that matter? Why bring that into the conversation, Faustian? The only issue that was raised is the neutrality of this article... that happens thousands of times here on Wikipedia, and someone's IP address origin is never discussed. Thanks for proving my point that you have serious issues of bias, and neutrality! --91.150.222.225 (talk) 13:56, 22 April 2012 (UTC)
No, it is a fact that there is a history of anon Polish IPs, such as you, making disruptive nationalistic edits on wikipedia. This is attested by the blocs that these nationalistic disruptive IPs, such as you, earn. I freely admit that I am biased against Polish (or any other nationality) anon IPS that make disruptive nationalistic edits.17:13, 22 April 2012 (UTC)
Many disputes have users from numerous countries contributing to any given subject, and there is absolutely no need to single out any particular nationality, that's just bias, and has a loaded connotation attached to it. Such statements are discouraged per Wiki rules, and it's difficult to say that my argument is nationalistic, when my primary issue was the removal of two phrases that were agreed-on in the "discussion" page as being inaccurate. How is that nationalistic, what's being denied? --91.150.222.225 (talk) 19:46, 23 April 2012 (UTC)

Possibly unfree File:Tarnavsky.jpgEdit

A file that you uploaded or altered, File:Tarnavsky.jpg, has been listed at Wikipedia: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 the discussion if you are interested in it not being deleted. Thank you. Stefan2 (talk) 15:15, 4 May 2012 (UTC)

Малая РусьEdit

The article on Little Russia talks about changes in perception of the term Малая Русь. For Taras Shevchenko, this was the preferred term for Ukraine. The term was perceived differently by some people in the 1980s, when Ukraine was part of the USSR. Since the contention of the article is the perception of the term has changed over time, a source from the 1980s is not evidence of how the term is perceived 24 years after publication.--Toddy1 (talk) 06:25, 17 July 2012 (UTC)

Do you have evidence that is is perceived differently now than in the 1980's? The word Ukraine has also changed meaning; does a work published in the 1980's stating that Ukraine is the word used for the people become "in the 1980's the people referred to themselves as Ukrainians"?Faustian (talk) 14:37, 17 July 2012 (UTC)

Good article reassessmentEdit

Kiev Offensive (1920), an article that you may be interested in, has been nominated for a good article reassessment. If you are interested in the discussion, please participate by adding your comments to the good article reassessment page. If concerns are not addressed during the review period, the good article status will be removed from the article. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 16:21, 7 August 2012 (UTC)

DmowskiEdit

Thanks for having broadened this. After my failed attempts to introduce material critical of the National Democracy and recent reverts here I almost lost hope that anything critical of the nasty heroes of Polish ultranationalism can be said here. Keep up your contributions!--Miacek and his crime-fighting dog (woof!) 17:58, 25 March 2013 (UTC)

Thanks!Faustian (talk) 22:11, 25 March 2013 (UTC)

Black HundredEdit

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Black_Hundreds&curid=1253797&action=history BH's antiUkrainian sentiments were deleted from the article. I'd appreciate your opinion (can't do it myself, due to the topic-ban).--Galassi (talk) 21:08, 10 May 2013 (UTC)

UPA stuffEdit

what's going on there, looks like this user is inserting a lot of stuff from the ukrainian wiki? changed the flag, the size of the army, and loads of content. Should a mass revert happen and sort this on the talk page? Just too much stuff in the diffs for me to handle at the moment--Львівське (говорити) 15:21, 30 May 2013 (UTC)

I'm busy in real life for extensive work nowadays. My admittedly superficial impression of that user is that he might be a Ukrainian nationalist version of the Polish nationalists who used to disrupt such pages in the past.Faustian (talk) 15:44, 30 May 2013 (UTC)
I too am too busy with 'real life' and haven't been editing much in the last several months...*sigh* I'd hate for the page to turn to shit.--Львівське (говорити) 23:04, 30 May 2013 (UTC)
If it gets awful I'll step in; that hasn't happened yet.Faustian (talk) 02:28, 31 May 2013 (UTC)

Testing timesEdit

I know you decided to walk away in despair some time ago, and I fully respect that. But I wondered if you had any views on the current discussion about the article title at Talk:Rorschach test? Many thanks. Martinevans123 (talk) 15:48, 30 May 2013 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for June 4Edit

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Western Ukrainian nobility, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Przemysl (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 13:17, 4 June 2013 (UTC)

June 2013Edit

  Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to Western Ukrainian nobility may have broken the syntax by modifying 1 "()"s. If you have, don't worry, just edit the page again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on my operator's talk page.

Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 04:47, 5 June 2013 (UTC)


  Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to Carpathian Ruthenia may have broken the syntax by modifying 1 "()"s. If you have, don't worry, just edit the page again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on my operator's talk page.

List of unpaired brackets remaining on the page:
  • who self-identify as [[Ukrainians]], many of whom may also be considered Ruthenian-speakers ([[Rusyns]] who may refer to themselves and their language as ''Rusnak'' or ''Lemko''. [[Places
  • http://www.carpathia.gov.ua/en/news/detail/1247.htm | accessdate=2008-12-28} | language=Ukrainian}}</ref><ref>{{cite web | title = Rusyns Recognized as Indigenous Nationality of the Transcarpathian

Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 13:23, 11 June 2013 (UTC)

Notice of Edit warring noticeboard discussionEdit

Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion involving you at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring regarding a possible violation of Wikipedia's policy on edit warring. The thread is Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring#History_of_the_Ukrainian_minority_in_Poland. Thank you. —194.44.15.214 (talk) 11:20, 10 June 2013 (UTC)

Notice of Neutral point of view noticeboard discussionEdit

Hello, Faustian. This message is being sent to inform you that there currently is a discussion at Wikipedia:Neutral point of view/Noticeboard regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. The thread is History of the Ukrainian minority in Poland.The discussion is about the topic Education. Thank you. --194.44.15.214 (talk) 14:54, 11 June 2013 (UTC)

KarkocEdit

I don't know if you've seen this story, but there's a Wikipedia article on it: Michael Karkoc. Just giving you heads up because it looks like one of those articles which could become trouble so the more sensible eyes on it the better.Volunteer Marek 00:53, 27 June 2013 (UTC)

Roman DmowskiEdit

According to [7], you are one of the main contributors to this article. I am done with my rewrite of it, and I'd like to submit it to GAN in the near future. Any comments and edits would be much appreciated, --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 15:11, 19 September 2013 (UTC)

I'm busy IRL but your changes look good!Faustian (talk) 06:04, 20 September 2013 (UTC)

Blue ArmyEdit

Faustian, please proof ready your edit... Also, I understand you added more background about Gibson, but trying to include a bio about the man is not really the place on the Blue Army's page. The edit is going off the subject. --Factor01 (talk) 07:01, 18 November 2013 (UTC)

When information by Gibson about Haller and Jews is included, the fact that Gibson was an antisemite and that he and his colleagues disliked Jews, ridiculed them, accused them of being exploiters, etc. is quite notable.Faustian (talk) 07:05, 18 November 2013 (UTC)

RfC Lemkos v RusynsEdit

Just wondering if I can get an outside opinion on this argument. Essentially, a user wants to combine people in Poland who self-identify as 'Lemko' as 'Rusyn', despite what the census actually says. I've provided sources with quotes describing the ethnonym situation but to no avail. If you have time to check it out, thanks in advance. --Львівське (говорити) 04:42, 14 February 2014 (UTC)

Haller's Blue ArmyEdit

I've re-added newly included sourced text that you conveniently also reverted with you last edit. As for the other issues I will start to address them one by one individually on the article talk page. Next time. why don't you look at the changes instead of automatically reverting text wholesale. Finally, quit calling people disruptive, as what I did falls within the listed guidelines WP:BRD. --89.64.208.222 (talk) 13:49, 26 February 2014 (UTC)

Genrikh YagodaEdit

Hello, Faustian I would like to request your editing experts on the topic of Genrikh Yagoda, and in particular his involvement in the Holodomor in the Ukraine. I would like to augment this section, and if you have any sourced input it would be greatly appreciated. --89.64.208.222 (talk) 14:43, 26 February 2014 (UTC)

I'm not interested in him, sorry.Faustian (talk) 14:46, 26 February 2014 (UTC)

Revert editEdit

Can you please explain why you reverted the edits? They were not involving any of the material in the Controversies section. You can check for yourself. What I did was to clean up the text and make grammatical improvements to other sections. --COD T 3 (talk) 00:27, 28 February 2014 (UTC)

You are adding a POV and original research into the intro.Faustian (talk) 00:31, 28 February 2014 (UTC)
Well than adjust that section, I also improved may many other parts of that article. --COD T 3 (talk) 00:32, 28 February 2014 (UTC)
  • I recommend you request the help of another admin, these changes are in no way POV, and now you are edit warring. Because as I noted I did not touch the controversies section, but I did change the last section of the intro to make it more encyclopedic in tone not POV. So, I encourage you to get a neutral admin to look at this issue. --COD T 3 (talk) 00:36, 28 February 2014 (UTC)
Making excuses is not "encyclopedic in tone." Faustian (talk) 00:37, 28 February 2014 (UTC)

Possible text versionEdit

Ok, here is a version that notes the civilian abuse first.

During the subsequent military campaigns in Galicia, elements of the Blue Army were involved in sporadic incidents of antisemitic violence and civilian abuse; where Jewish and Ukrainian political organizations actively supported foreign interests hostile to Poland, including Bolshevik Russia, and Marxist elements in Western Ukraine, along with post-war revolutionary Germany in the west. --COD T 3 (talk) 01:25, 28 February 2014 (UTC)

Hello! There is a DR/N request you may have interest in.Edit

This message is being sent to let you know of a discussion at the Wikipedia:Dispute resolution noticeboard regarding a content dispute discussion you may have participated in. Content disputes can hold up article development and make editing difficult for editors. You are not required to participate, but you are both invited and encouraged to help find a resolution. The discussion is about the topic Blue Army (Poland). Please join us to help form a consensus. Thank you! — TransporterMan (TALK) 17:30, 7 March 2014 (UTC) (DRN volunteer)

March 2014Edit

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 24 hours for edit warring, as you did at Blue Army (Poland). Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions. If you think there are good reasons why you should be unblocked, you may appeal this block by adding the following text below this notice: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}. However, you should read the guide to appealing blocks first.

During a dispute, you should first try to discuss controversial changes and seek consensus. If that proves unsuccessful, you are encouraged to seek dispute resolution, and in some cases it may be appropriate to request page protection.   Sandstein  19:21, 20 March 2014 (UTC)

Arbitration enforcement warning: Eastern EuropeEdit

  The Arbitration Committee has permitted administrators to impose discretionary sanctions (information on which is at Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee/Discretionary sanctions) on any editor who is active on pages broadly related to Eastern Europe. Discretionary sanctions can be used against an editor who repeatedly or seriously fails to adhere to the purpose of Wikipedia, satisfy any standard of behavior, or follow any normal editorial process. If you inappropriately edit pages relating to this topic, you may be placed under sanctions, which can include blocks, a revert limitation, or an article ban. The Committee's full decision can be read at the "Final decision" section of the decision page.

Please familiarise yourself with the information page at Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee/Discretionary sanctions, with the appropriate sections of Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee/Procedures, and with the case decision page before making any further edits to the pages in question. This notice is given by an uninvolved administrator and will be logged on the case decision, pursuant to the conditions of the Arbitration Committee's discretionary sanctions system.

Please see the block notice above for context.  Sandstein  19:26, 20 March 2014 (UTC)

 
This blocked user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy). Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.

Faustian (block logactive blocksglobal blockscontribsdeleted contribsfilter logcreation logchange block settingsunblockcheckuser (log))


Request reason:

My behavior consisted exclusively of adding referenced information that had been removed by another editor (i.e., blanking): [8]. I wasn't removing information, nor adding stuff that was unreferenced or controversial or inappropriate. It does not seem fair, that an editor can disrupt an article by removing information, and I get blocked simply for restoring the blanked information, and am treated the same way as the other editor, as if our actions were equal. I am willing to abide by advice for the sake of getting unblocked. Faustian (talk) 19:33, 20 March 2014 (UTC)

Decline reason:

The only exemption to the three revert rule are listed here, whilst I can see what you're referring to I don't agree that it was obvious vandalism. What you needed to have done was encourage the user to discuss on the talk page, and if they didn't report them to WP:ANEW so action could be taken against them. If you agree to do this in the future I'd be happy to consider unblocking you, however please note that now you have been notified of discretionary sanctions you may face a lengthy block or other sanctions next time. Callanecc (talkcontribslogs) 05:18, 21 March 2014 (UTC)
Okay, I'll agree to do this in the future. Please unblock me. Also, is there a way to be removed from the warning list on discretionary sanctions? It seems like a severe penalty, for the act of restoring referenced info that was being removed.Faustian (talk) 12:07, 21 March 2014 (UTC)

Hello! There is a DR/N request you may have interest in.Edit

This message is being sent to let you know of a discussion at the Wikipedia:Dispute resolution noticeboard regarding a content dispute discussion you may have participated in. Content disputes can hold up article development and make editing difficult for editors. You are not required to participate, but you are both invited and encouraged to help find a resolution. The discussion is about the topic Blue Army (Poland). Please join us to help form a consensus. Thank you! — TransporterMan (TALK) 13:46, 24 March 2014 (UTC) (DRN volunteer)

Haller's ArmyEdit

Hi Faustian, thanks for your note on my talk page. Unfortunately, I haven't done any more than read briefly about the wars in Ukraine, Poland, and the USSR at the close of WWI and following the Russian Revolution. So I'm not an expert. I tried to look up a few things about Haller's Army and see that you already know more about the subject than I will even if I take a bit of time to work on this. Briefly, I tend to agree with you in your characterization of the army and your thought that its anti-Semitic violence should be noted on the lead. Luckily, I think that the person leading the dispute resolution looks like a competent person who'll judge in a scholarly way, on the basis of sources. There'll be more time to work on this later in case you don't have enough sources now to accurately describe the army and its conduct.

On another note, I have a close friend who's Polish and a very old man now, who was born into a Jewish family in Warsaw in 1927. I asked him about Haller's Army after your note, and he gave me a short lecture on Haller, his military forces, and the various nationalist movements of the period. According to this man, Haller's army was notoriously anti-Semitic and organized a wave of pogroms during their military campaigns (not simply allowing them to happen, but actually participating or sometimes leading). This is the very definition of OR so of course it means nothing here, but I thought you'd be interested. -Darouet (talk) 19:08, 30 March 2014 (UTC)

Formal mediation has been requestedEdit

The Mediation Committee has received a request for formal mediation of the dispute relating to "Blue Army (Poland)". As an editor concerned in this dispute, you are invited to participate in the mediation. Mediation is a voluntary process which resolves a dispute over article content by facilitation, consensus-building, and compromise among the involved editors. After reviewing the request page, the formal mediation policy, and the guide to formal mediation, please indicate in the "party agreement" section whether you agree to participate. Because requests must be responded to by the Mediation Committee within seven days, please respond to the request by 12 April 2014.

Discussion relating to the mediation request is welcome at the case talk page. Thank you.
Message delivered by MediationBot (talk) on behalf of the Mediation Committee. 12:24, 5 April 2014 (UTC)

Request for mediation acceptedEdit

The request for formal mediation of the dispute concerning Blue Army (Poland), in which you were listed as a party, has been accepted by the Mediation Committee. The case will be assigned to an active mediator within two weeks, and mediation proceedings should begin shortly thereafter. Proceedings will begin at the case information page, Wikipedia:Requests for mediation/Blue Army (Poland), so please add this to your watchlist. Formal mediation is governed by the Mediation Committee and its Policy. The Policy, and especially the first two sections of the "Mediation" section, should be read if you have never participated in formal mediation. For a short guide to accepted cases, see the "Accepted requests" section of the Guide to formal mediation. You may also want to familiarise yourself with the internal Procedures of the Committee.

As mediation proceedings begin, be aware that formal mediation can only be successful if every participant approaches discussion in a professional and civil way, and is completely prepared to compromise. Please contact the Committee if anything is unclear.

For the Mediation Committee, Sunray (talk) 05:06, 11 April 2014 (UTC)
(Delivered by MediationBot, on behalf of the Mediation Committee.)

Mediator assignedEdit

The mediator for this case will be Seddon. He will be available on Monday, April 21. Sunray (talk) 23:26, 18 April 2014 (UTC)

Mediation - Brief introduction and updateEdit

Hi Faustian. This mediation is going to be significantly more structured than a simple freeflowing discussion. I emailed the committee over the weekend that I would take the case however I have been travelling until today. I am going to take the next 24 hours to read up on the previous discussions and read the article.

I have very briefly skimmed over the article. In short you both raise valid points. Neither of you are entirely right nor wrong in your opinions. There are certainly improvements that can be made and I think that whatever your individual opinions on the topic and article are, we should be fairly easily be able to find a solution which satisfies the requirements of sourcing, NPOV and yet not being destructive to the article.

Give me 24-48 hours and Ill have some tasks for you both to do so that we can get to work. One thing I do ask from both parties is patience, understanding and flexibility. Without any one of these and there is little point in mediation happening. You both raise valid points and we should work on those. I will be contactable offline as well as through wiki and I will provide you both with my contact details should you wish to utilize this.

I will be crossposting this to both of your talkpages since the message is entirely applicable to both of you :)

Will be contact soon. Seddon talk 19:54, 21 April 2014 (UTC)

I have just gotten back from travelling also and so welcome the break while I unpack etc. Thank you!Faustian (talk) 12:16, 22 April 2014 (UTC)
Hi Faustian, the mediation will be on Wikipedia talk:Requests for mediation/Blue Army (Poland). PhilKnight (talk) 00:03, 23 May 2014 (UTC)

TalkbackEdit

Hello, Faustian. You have new messages at Malik Shabazz's talk page.
Message added 17:03, 5 June 2014 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

TalkbackEdit

Hello, Faustian. You have new messages at Malik Shabazz's talk page.
Message added 16:48, 13 June 2014 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Edit WarringEdit

  There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by COD T 3 (talkcontribs) 17:55, 15 June 2014 (UTC)

July 2014Edit

Your recent editing history at Blue Army (Poland)‎ shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war. Being involved in an edit war can result in your being blocked from editing—especially if you violate the three-revert rule, which states that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Undoing another editor's work—whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert. Also keep in mind that while violating the three-revert rule often leads to a block, you can still be blocked for edit warring—even if you don't violate the three-revert rule—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly.

To avoid being blocked, instead of reverting please consider using the article's talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. See BRD for how this is done. If discussions reach an impasse, you can then post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection. — Malik Shabazz Talk/Stalk 20:47, 10 July 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for the warning. I will stop now (though the other guy has made more reverts than I have).Faustian (talk) 21:02, 10 July 2014 (UTC)

August 2014Edit

Your recent editing history at Blue Army (Poland)‎ shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war. Being involved in an edit war can result in your being blocked from editing—especially if you violate the three-revert rule, which states that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Undoing another editor's work—whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert. Also keep in mind that while violating the three-revert rule often leads to a block, you can still be blocked for edit warring—even if you don't violate the three-revert rule—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly.

To avoid being blocked, instead of reverting please consider using the article's talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. See BRD for how this is done. If discussions reach an impasse, you can then post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection. --COD T 3 (talk) 08:38, 3 August 2014 (UTC)

WP:AEEdit

A discussion is in progress at WP:AE concerning Blue Army (Poland). Robert McClenon (talk) 00:59, 4 August 2014 (UTC)

Please seem my comments on your talk page.Faustian (talk) 02:42, 4 August 2014 (UTC)

Looking forward to reading the attachmentEdit

 
Hello, Faustian. Please check your email; you've got mail!
It may take a few minutes from the time the email is sent for it to show up in your inbox. You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{You've got mail}} or {{ygm}} template.

I couldn't find your email, but you need mine first in order to affix an attachment. Thank you, Faustian! --Iryna Harpy (talk) 23:41, 5 August 2014 (UTC)

Eastern Europe topic areaEdit

Please keep in mind when editing (especially in the Eastern Europe topic area) that Wikipedia articles must be neutral and contributors are bound by conduct policies, specifically in this case the edit warring policy. Breaching conduct policies can lead to blocks and other sanctions. Please see this AE request for background information related to this reminder. Callanecc (talkcontribslogs) 14:28, 7 August 2014 (UTC)

Thank you for the reminder. I have and continue to try to make my edits neutral; I acknowledge that edit warring is bad but do state that my edit warring had been reactive to another's disruptions rather than proactive.Faustian (talk) 14:35, 7 August 2014 (UTC)

Enjoy your holiday!Edit

Hope you have a refreshing, relaxing (or adventurous!) break. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 00:56, 10 August 2014 (UTC)

Ruthenians in GaliciaEdit

You are being discussed here for OR, nationalistic chauvinism, edit warring, and wikihounding: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:No_original_research/Noticeboard#Ruthenians_in_Galicia85.154.245.171 (talk) 04:57, 20 September 2014 (UTC)

WARNING regarding Wiki naming policy for ethnic groups and self-identificationEdit

Just a reminder of Wiki naming policy for ethnic groups: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Naming_conventions_(ethnicities_and_tribes) "Self-identification-How the group self-identifies should be considered. If their autonym is commonly used in English, it would be the best article title. Any terms regarded as derogatory by members of the ethnic group in question should be avoided." As noted by Paul Robert Magosci, there is an ethnic group known in English as Ruthenians, but which self identifies as Carpatho-Rusyns, or simply Rusyns. They do not self-identify as Ukrainians. In fact, they find the Ukrainian label offensive. You are hereby warned that continuing to refer to Carpatho-Rusyns as Ukrainians may result in complaints being lodged against you in appropriate Wiki forums.85.154.245.171 (talk) 13:32, 22 September 2014 (UTC)

Yes, I received the same so-called "Warning" (which doesn't adhere to any standard template I'm aware of... nor do guidelines constitute a rationale for issuing warnings). This is clearly harassment. For your edification, I've posted a response to this on my own talk, Faustian, and am about to leave a terse reply on the Galicia article talk page. It isn't appropriate to use article talk pages for such matters, but I'm letting both you and 85.154.245.171 know that, should s/he persist in this WP:TEDIOUS behaviour, I will be reporting it in no uncertain terms. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 03:53, 23 September 2014 (UTC)
A good idea. He has a new IP now and is expanding the scope of his work: [9].Faustian (talk) 04:02, 23 September 2014 (UTC)

New article makes me very, very nervousEdit

I was wondering whether you'd be willing to quickly read over Historical background of the 2014 pro-Russian unrest in Ukraine (if/when you can find a moment away from struggles on every admin board around). I was already concerned that it needed some serious work before being moved from its draft space, but it's already been moved. Frankly, I don't know how it can possibly be 'kept under control'. I've already expressed my concerns in no uncertain terms, but I'd be grateful if you could caste an eye over it. It's missed/completely overlooked huge tracts of historical issues. Sigh. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 05:47, 24 September 2014 (UTC)

Nervousness about potential problems and hijacking is warranted, but at the moments the article looks generally okay.Faustian (talk) 13:14, 24 September 2014 (UTC)

September 2014Edit

  Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to Galicia (Eastern Europe) may have broken the syntax by modifying 2 "[]"s. If you have, don't worry: just edit the page again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on my operator's talk page.

List of unpaired brackets remaining on the page:
  • been inflated because Jews were not given the option of listing Yiddish as their language. <ref> [[Timothy Snyder. (2003).The Reconstruction of Nations. New Haven: Yale University Press, pg. 134 </

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 14:19, 25 September 2014 (UTC)

  Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to Ruthenians may have broken the syntax by modifying 1 "()"s. If you have, don't worry: just edit the page again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on my operator's talk page.

List of unpaired brackets remaining on the page:
  • (corporate author) (1932) "Ludnosc, Ludnosc wedlug wyznania i plci oraz jezyka ojczystego" (table 10, pg. 15</ref> In Galicia, the Polish government actively replaced all references to

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 13:36, 29 September 2014 (UTC)

November 24Edit

  You may be blocked from editing without further warning the next time you remove the maintenance templates from Wikipedia articles without resolving the problem that the template refers to, as you did at Czesław Mączyński‎. Poeticbent talk 06:25, 24 November 2014 (UTC)

Articles being changedEdit

Hi, Faustian. I'm having some problems with an SPA who's busy reworking everything from Kyrylo Rozumovskyi, to the Cossack Hetmanate, to Ruthenians, Gregory Skovoroda, plus adding Skovoroda to the list of Russian philosophers. If you take a look at his special contributions, you'll get a sense of the problem. Hope you can help out. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 02:59, 20 December 2014 (UTC)

File source problem with File:Barvinsky Oleksander-1-.jpgEdit

 

Thank you for uploading File:Barvinsky Oleksander-1-.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, please add a link to the page from which it was taken, together with a brief restatement of the website's terms of use of its content. If the original copyright holder is a party unaffiliated with the website, that author should also be credited. Please add this information by editing the image description page.

If the necessary information is not added within the next days, the image will be deleted. If the file is already gone, you can still make a request for undeletion and ask for a chance to fix the problem.

Please refer to the image use policy to learn what images you can or cannot upload on Wikipedia. Please also check any other files you have uploaded to make sure they are correctly tagged. Here is a list of your uploads. If you have any questions or are in need of assistance please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Stefan2 (talk) 22:36, 26 December 2014 (UTC)

This is an image from the 19th century, of a guy born in 1846. How is it still copyrighted? Faustian (talk) 02:56, 27 December 2014 (UTC)

Happy New Year Faustian!Edit

Thank you! Best wishes, health and good luck to you also!Faustian (talk) 00:29, 1 January 2015 (UTC)

Talk:Stepan BanderaEdit

There's some block evasion by the IP, that's why I removed last comments. Bladesmulti (talk) 23:27, 10 January 2015 (UTC)

No problem!Faustian (talk) 06:03, 11 January 2015 (UTC)

Disruptive Editing of the Polish census of 1931Edit

Since you have been active on the talk page regarding the Polish census of 1931, and you have been pushing a clearly erroneous claim that in a WP page citing to the original census WP is required to rely upon only secondary sources to report what was published, I am posting this here. It is not OR to accurately report what was published in a national census, on a WP page about the same. If you seriously think this a violation of OR, I suggest that you make your point on a relevant noticeboard since accurately reporting what was published in a census is standard procedure here on WP. (Please see the most recent U.S. Census for examples of this 2010 United States Census.) I looked, but didn't see where you objected or complained that accurately reporting on the U.S. Census was OR. Perhaps you can explain your reasons for not doing so? In any event, you have ample opportunity to find RS for criticisms, reasonable or not, of the published results of that census which might be addressed on the page. It is impossible to do that if the actual published results are not accurately reported such that the criticisms can be understood. However, I am concerned that your comments on the talk page, and elsewhere indicate that you are engaging in pushing a nationalist POV which is disruptive to the page. See related discussion here https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Polish_census_of_1931#Objections_to_the_fidelity_of_this_page_reporting_the_results_of_the_Polish_Census_of_1931 and here https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Piotrus for further elaboration of the point. I will repeat here: My POV is that when a national census of a nation is the subject of a WP page, the results of that census will be translated and reported accurately on that WP page. Your POV is to censor reporting that you don't like by finding alternative second hand interpretation and synthesis of the same. If you don't make the same objections to other national censuses, I will conclude that your behavior is discriminatory and motivated by some kind of ethnic animus. Fair enough?Doctor Franklin (talk) 18:29, 8 October 2015 (UTC)

I had not made any edits on the page recently when you made the comment above. Clearly you are involved in edit warring there and uncivil behavior here.Faustian (talk) 19:29, 8 October 2015 (UTC)
It appears that Doctor Franklin is posting fairly much identical comments casting WP:ASPERSIONS as to the motivation behind a consensus-based presentation of the content of this article. As I've also been accused of anti-Polish sentiment by this editor, I take this to be an unjustified personal attack. For someone whose editing history doesn't show that s/he's had any dealings with you, I find myself wondering why s/he is assuming bad faith. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 21:48, 8 October 2015 (UTC)

Notice of No Original Research Noticeboard discussionEdit

Hello, Norn-notice. This message is being sent to inform you that a discussion is taking place at Wikipedia:No original research/Noticeboard regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you.Doctor Franklin (talk) 16:22, 9 October 2015 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for October 10Edit

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

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 10:07, 10 October 2015 (UTC)

Do not remove NPOV tags until issues resolved on pages.Edit

You recently removed a NPOV tag on Polish census of 1931 while the issue noted has not been resolved. This is contrary to the clear instructions per template:POV. If you continue to act in a disruptive manner, you may be reported for disruption and blocked.Doctor Franklin (talk) 06:26, 13 October 2015 (UTC)

Primary sources, secondary sources, and the censusEdit

Hello Faustian. This is in reply to your response regarding my comment about a census conducted by a government. I'm on a semi-wikibreak, and did not see your reply until a while ago. (Because of that wikibreak, it would be best to ping me if you reply, and a reply here would be better than elsewhere.)

First, I want to look at the definition of a primary source. According to WP:PRIMARY, Primary sources are original materials that are close to an event, and are often accounts written by people who are directly involved. When a census taker enumerates the population of an area, this would be close to the event (the event being a census), and would be an account written by a person directly involved (the census taker). The quote you used in your reply would also be an example of a primary source, but is one that is used in a different context (i.e. scientific experiments).

A secondary source provides an author's own thinking based on primary sources, generally at least one step removed from an event. It contains an author's interpretation, analysis, or evaluation of the facts, evidence, concepts, and ideas taken from primary sources. This is what a census report does: It takes the raw data collected from the field and provides statistical analysis or evaluation of the facts, and attempts to summarize that information in a meaningful manner.

Note that these definitions do not rely upon the methodology or terminology used for a particular census, although it's conceivable the lines can be blurred in certain circumstances. It's also possible that methodology or terminology can introduce systemic bias into a particular census, but even when it does, it does not change the definitions. Etamni | ✉   05:03, 14 October 2015 (UTC)

Correct. But, a scientific report (and that is what a census is - it's a descriptive study) is itself a primary source. Policy: " a scientific paper documenting a new experiment conducted by the author is a primary source on the outcome of that experiment." If I run a study using surveys and conduct my own statistical analysis of the surveys, my conclusions would be a primary source; it is my study, and even though my research assistants probably did the physical work I am not removed from the study. Similarly, the census report written by the organizers of the census is a primary source. The census commission organized the study, set the study's parameters, and reported on the results of their study. This report by the organizers of the study is a primary source, just like any scientific paper documenting a new experiment. It's why a census is explicitly described as a primary source. A secondary source would be someone else describing, critiquing, using etc. the census report. A secondary source might conclude the census was biased, or not, or used incorrect methodology (or not).Faustian (talk) 18:26, 14 October 2015 (UTC)

Polish CensusEdit

You were correct, census reports are primary sources [10] . We are covered because we have tertiary sources that analyze the census data. Regards --Woogie10w (talk) 13:28, 16 October 2015 (UTC)

Template:Faustian:ANI-noticeEdit

Template:Iryna Harpy:ANI-notice You are being discussed here https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Incidents#Vandalism_of_page_tags_by_nationalist_tag-team.2C_Iryna_Harpy_and_FaustianDoctor Franklin (talk) 17:53, 21 October 2015 (UTC)

Request to stop edit warringEdit

Faustian, pls refrain form edit warring, there are several editors who do not agree with your approach and your past edits. Also, just because months before an RfC agreed on a text does not mean that the text can never be changed, especially in light that the statement you provided was not the full statement from the source. Pls see the below comment form user McCandlish, who we both respect:

"But see WP:VESTED and WP:CCC; there is no such thing as an "established [topic] editor" whose views count for more than those of other editors. Consensus forms and changes (any time, anywhere on WP) based on who cares enough to give their input into the matter. WP:LOCALCONSENSUS and WP:OWN are also relevant in this regard; many wikiprojects collectively delude themselves into thinking they have the right to control articles they feel are entirely or mostly within their scope."

--E-960 (talk) 19:30, 22 November 2015 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents — Blue Army (Poland)Edit

  There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. --E-960 (talk) 21:22, 22 November 2015 (UTC)

Edit warringEdit

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

Being involved in an edit war can result in your being blocked from editing—especially if you violate the three-revert rule, which states that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Undoing another editor's work—whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert. Also keep in mind that while violating the three-revert rule often leads to a block, you can still be blocked for edit warring—even if you don't violate the three-revert rule—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly. Pls, note that the text you inserted has not gained consensus, thus any editor has the right to revert it. --E-960 (talk) 23:07, 22 November 2015 (UTC)

consider a cool-off periodEdit

Faustian, pls consider a cool-off period, you are not the only editor who is involved in this discussion, are we have several fair and experienced editors who are willing to lend their opinion in the discussion. --E-960 (talk) 23:13, 22 November 2015 (UTC)

You do realize that you are the one who began removing referenced information from the article, despite a RFC, and without achieving consensus on talk.Faustian (talk) 23:14, 22 November 2015 (UTC)
Pls consider that we have been receiving constructive input from several experienced editors, so this discussion is being noticed by several editors who have a genuine interest in getting this right. Waiting on input form everyone is at the best interest of all parties who put effort in trying to fix this article, and not make it worse. --E-960 (talk) 23:19, 22 November 2015 (UTC)
You are the one who removed referenced info without consensus: [11]. I suggest you follow your own advice.Faustian (talk) 23:22, 22 November 2015 (UTC)

ArbCom elections are now open!Edit

Hi,
You appear to be eligible to vote in the current Arbitration Committee election. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate, you are welcome to review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. For the Election committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 13:58, 23 November 2015 (UTC)

ANI - Inappropriate remarksEdit

  There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. --E-960 (talk) 21:54, 24 November 2015 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for December 2Edit

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

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 10:47, 2 December 2015 (UTC)

Reference errors on 14 DecemberEdit

  Hello, I'm ReferenceBot. I have automatically detected that an edit performed by you may have introduced errors in referencing. It is as follows:

Please check this page and fix the errors highlighted. If you think this is a false positive, you can report it to my operator. Thanks, ReferenceBot (talk) 00:22, 15 December 2015 (UTC)

Season's greetings!Edit

Consensus, CompromiseEdit

I appreciate your consistent replies and goal to reach a consensus and compromise. The wording in the Skovoroda article intro is muddled and I hope to clear it up and give some respectful descriptions of Skovoroda.

Svyatver (talk) 14:49, 30 December 2015 (UTC)

WeirdEdit

An editor is trying to paint https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ben_Klassen as Ukrainian.--Galassi (talk)

Undue bias on Nikolai GogolEdit

Hello! There is a DR/N request you may have interest in.Edit

This message is being sent to let you know of a discussion at the Wikipedia:Dispute resolution noticeboard regarding a content dispute discussion you may have participated in. Content disputes can hold up article development and make editing difficult for editors. You are not required to participate, but you are both invited and encouraged to help this dispute come to a resolution. Please join us to help form a consensus. Thank you! • DP •  {huh?} 23:39, 24 August 2016 (UTC)

ArbCom Elections 2016: Voting now open!Edit

 Hello, Faustian. Voting in the 2016 Arbitration Committee elections is open from Monday, 00:00, 21 November through Sunday, 23:59, 4 December to all unblocked users who have registered an account before Wednesday, 00:00, 28 October 2016 and have made at least 150 mainspace edits before Sunday, 00:00, 1 November 2016.

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

If you wish to participate in the 2016 election, please review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 22:08, 21 November 2016 (UTC)

Yo Ho HoEdit

DerpEdit

Sorry for the EJ-related confusion over at that RfC. I was trying to catch up with too many RfCs in rapid-fire succession and did not read the material closely enough.  — SMcCandlish ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ʌ≼  03:50, 16 April 2017 (UTC)

No problem, SMcCandlish. Your hard work is much appreciated!Faustian (talk) 04:11, 16 April 2017 (UTC)

ArbCom 2017 election voter messageEdit

 Hello, Faustian. Voting in the 2017 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23.59 on Sunday, 10 December. All users who registered an account before Saturday, 28 October 2017, made at least 150 mainspace edits before Wednesday, 1 November 2017 and are not currently blocked are eligible to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

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

If you wish to participate in the 2017 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 18:42, 3 December 2017 (UTC)

NPAEdit

Re [12]. Please refrain from insulting your fellow editors in your edit summaries. Volunteer Marek 06:15, 22 October 2018 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for October 23Edit

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Polish–Ukrainian War, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Norman Davis (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are usually incorrect, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of unrelated topics with similar titles. (Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.)

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 09:39, 23 October 2018 (UTC)

ArbCom 2018 election voter messageEdit

 Hello, Faustian. Voting in the 2018 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23.59 on Sunday, 3 December. All users who registered an account before Sunday, 28 October 2018, made at least 150 mainspace edits before Thursday, 1 November 2018 and are not currently blocked are eligible to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

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

If you wish to participate in the 2018 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 18:42, 19 November 2018 (UTC)

Polish-Ukrainian WarEdit

Faustian, do you have a reliable reference source which states to the contrary that those SPECIFIC examples were indeed just allegations or false claims? These were long standing statements in the article, which you changed, and they are based on reliable sources, and if those sources don't speculate one the nature of those atrocities (whether those were unsubstantiated claims), you have no justification to inset those hedging statements. --E-960 (talk) 10:17, 15 November 2019 (UTC)

Reliable source states there were NO widespread atrocities by either side. But BOTH sides make claims about atrocities. So when a Polish source that cannot be verified online described alleged atrocities, they should be described as such. I will probably just to an RFC on this issue when I have time.Faustian (talk) 00:52, 16 November 2019 (UTC)
Pls do not edit war, and be mindful of the WP:3RR rule, and Wikipedia:BOLD, revert, discuss cycle. At this point no consensus has been reached, and a discussion to find a compromise needs to take place. --E-960 (talk) 13:08, 20 November 2019 (UTC)

ArbCom 2019 election voter messageEdit

 Hello! Voting in the 2019 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 on Monday, 2 December 2019. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

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

If you wish to participate in the 2019 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:07, 19 November 2019 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of Oxana NarozniakEdit

 

The article Oxana Narozniak has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

Participating in a single exhibition does no suffice to meet WP:NARTIST. Seems to fail NBIO/GNG.

While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, pages may be deleted for any of several reasons.

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

Please consider improving the page to address the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 15:10, 29 January 2020 (UTC)

Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here"Participating in a single exhibition does no suffice to meet WP:NARTIST. Seems to fail NBIO/GNG". False reason. Her work is also featured AT THE São Paulo Museum of Art.Faustian (talk) 01:37, 30 January 2020 (UTC)