User talk:Alex Bakharev/Archive21

Dear Alex!

I translated and found exact publications of this artist's advertising works, I made appropriate changes that you can find in the Source section. That's what I managed to clearify. This information could be checked easily. Quantity of publishing editions and regular publications are obvious. All materials have the author's copyright mark. Having in mind all of the above I would like to ask you to reconsider your ideological claims to this article and to send your answer to the author of this article who is realy waiting for it.--87.240.15.30 (talk) 16:19, 29 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hello,

I understand that everybody makes mistakes with grammar - even native speakers. That is not a problem. It does become a problem, however, when an editor puts tags on a page claiming a slight grammar nuance, for example Denial and denial, and yet cannot demonstrate a knowledge of the language deep enough to understand such nuances. That's the problem.

Then, an editor makes a statement like "While buying this book may cost you, it would be money well spent. Alternatively, you may try a good library".

Such edits by an editor neither AGF nor create an atmosphere of cooperation or civility. Thanks, Horlo (talk) 18:42, 29 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You are correct in identifying a prior name of a prior account of that user, however that prior account was renamed. This user was allowed by the Arbitration committee, if I recall correctly, to return on a new account because the old account was linked to real world information about them. We don't need a sockpuppet template on the userpage.

Yep, per Arbcomm.

GRBerry 02:08, 30 June 2008 (UTC)[reply

]

Alex, I saw your comment at the RFAR, and I wanted to point at m:Cross-wiki_arbitration_committee as a model that might be useful in the concept your describing, just my 2 cents. MBisanz ^talk 03:41, 30 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• I think it is an excellent suggestion! Thanks! Alex Bakharev (talk) 03:55, 30 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This hoax now appeared at first sentence of en:WP article. I’ve fix it (and many others) – as hoaxes [33] but that and rest hoaxes was reinstated [34] – as disruptive edits. I’ve missed some major changes in WP policy? Editors which revert hoaxes now warmed blocking and protect hoaxes for 20 days??? Alex Bakharev, could you please explain why you treat

The Ukrainian Insurgent Army (Ukrainian: Українська Повстанська Армія, Ukrayins’ka Povstans’ka Armiya, UPA) was a Ukrainian military formation[7] formed at spring-summer 1943[8] initially in Volhynia (located in north-western Ukraine). Jo0doe (talk) 14:19, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

As descriptive edits? Also could you please read this stuff [1] and advice how such effort of sole editor should be handled. I also point your attention what numerous attempts to discuss issues with specific editor has any results [2] [3] [4] - he always change a mind and act not as promised. Could you also advice how I can remove your last warning as far as applied similary as Я роман Пастернака не читал, но я осуждаю его"Jo0doe (talk) 05:25, 1 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• I have never claimed to be an expert on UPA, nor I ever added any content there. What I am trying to prevent is a rampant edit warring when one user keeps inserting long, badly written pieces to the text, while others disagree. Quite possible that there are good fragments on those pieces that would help the article a lot but it appears that many people find it difficult to separate good info from bad writing. As I said before, try argue small insertions one by one, it helps. It also helps to not alienate other users. E.g. I am quite positive Faustian's edits were in good faith. He restored the reference from a secondary source: Subtelny. Why Subtelny or Faustian can make mistakes it does not help to mislabel their works as intentional hoaxes. There is also a possibility that it was your mistake and the book indeed exists. If use your analogy Я Пастернака не читал, но осуждаю, когда по моему месту работы бегает человек, бьет толстым романом по голове и злобно матерится. I have scammed through the first of your links, the rest are just very long talk page archives that I have no time to read at the moment. If you point out 1000 words or less that I have to read to understand the problem I would try to help. In the first link Faustian claims that he has the book and would provide the page numbers, maybe it is worth to give him this possibility? Alex Bakharev (talk) 06:08, 1 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your detailed explanations. However, may be, you’ve mismatched [5] with [6]

or you suppose what well referenced trough

WP:SYN

, source facts manipulation and tiny minority view is good faith. May be right idea will be make existing text better instead of replacing it with mentioned above?

As far as you noted en:WP as you place of work – could you please advice (or advice me somebody else who can able to assist ) in practical usage of

• WP:REDFLAG
  policy – in regards to exceptional claims
• WP:UNDUE
  – in regards the tiny minority opinion
• WP:RS
  – in regards the – reliability of source – does I need to get prove :As a rule of thumb, the more people engaged in checking facts, analyzing legal issues, and scrutinizing the writing, the more reliable the publication?
• WP:V
  Questionable sources . – As regards a poor reputation for fact-checking.
• WP:NPOV
  – as regards neutrality of source

Could you advice me an advice how should administrator deal with editors which engaged in long time (over 1 years) in disrupting the WP reliability though breaching the

The dispute resolutions avenues are outlined in

WP:DR. If the question is about wheter a book is a reliable source or not I guess I could mediate it. Just ask Faustian if he agree on my mediation. I am not sure I qualify to mediate if we want to widen the scope of the dispute. An article RFC might be another useful option. Alex Bakharev (talk) 13:48, 1 July 2008 (UTC)[reply

]

For your info – UPA was a military formation of the Organization of Ukrainian Nationalists under Bandera steering (OUN(b) further. Accordingly to documents presented to the International Military Tribunal Ukrainian organizations (OUN(B)) which are working with Amt Abwehr have same (as Nazi’s) “objectives”, namely, the Poles and the Jews ^[1]. Such “objects” described as “all farms and dwelling of the Poles should go up in flames, and all Jews be killed” ^[2]. General Instruction adopted in 1941 “OUN Fights and activities during the war” stated “enemies to us are: moskali (Russians), Poles, Jews…” and thus them must be“… exterminated in fight, especially whom which protect regime: remove to their land, assassinate, predominantly intelligentsia… Jews assimilation is impossible.” OUN(B) actively and voluntarily formed Ukrainian Militia units - International Military Tribunal Exhibit USA-290 (Document 3257-PS) “…Specially detached formation of police executed a planned shooting of Jews. This action as a rule proceeded from east to west. It was done entirely in the public with the use of the Ukrainian militia… So far about 150,000 to 200,000 Jews may have been executed in the part of Ukraine belonging to Reichskommissariat.” IMT Vol III p.564 Military and paramilitary formations of OUN under Bandera actively cooperate and acted in favors of Germans military and intelligence authorities before and few months after German invasion to Soviet Union in 1941 Institute of Ukrainian History, Academy of Sciences of Ukraine, Organization of Ukrainian Nationalists and the Ukrainian Insurgent Army, Chapter 1, p. 15-47 OUN under Bandera actively cooperate and acted in favors of Germans military and intelligence authorities before and few months after German invasion to Soviet Union in 1941 Institute of Ukrainian History, Academy of Sciences of Ukraine, Organization of Ukrainian Nationalists and the Ukrainian Insurgent Army, Chapter 1, p. 15-47 4-6 thousand of Ukrainian militia members formed the initial UPA in spring-summer 1943 at Volynia. Formation of UPA in District Galicia was accomplished only in late 1943 - early 1944. The UPA was active in the

Official Soviet figures for the losses inflicted by all types of "Ukrainian nationalists" during the period 1944-1953 referred to 30,676 persons; amongst them were 687 NKGB-MGB personnel, 1,864 NKVD-MVD personnel, 3,199 Soviet Army, Border Guards, and NKVD-MVD troops, 241 communist party leaders, 205 komsomol leaders and 2,590 members of self-defense units, the remaining losses were among civilians, including 15,355 peasants and kolkhozniks.[3] The Activity of UPA was limited predominantly to pre 1939 Poland territory. (NO UPA at Soviet Ukraine – excluding few failed raids in 1943 and 1944)

At same time in North-America Ukrainian Diaspora widely popular myths based on doctored by OUN( http://krytyka.kiev.ua/conference/article/himka_paper_en.html#_ftn33 ) historical texts : a) about 1942 as year of UPA formation , 2) about numerous and long lasting fierce fighting with Germans (thousands of killed, retreated SS divisions etc 3) regime fighters – 25 NKVD divisions which failed to destroy UPA – thousands of killed NKVDist etc.

So facts still against the Diaspora version - No thousand of killed Germans (Germans sources not listed any “battles”nor German losses) but tens thousands of murdered Poles, no thousands of killed NKVDist – but thousands of killed Ukrainians peasants. No Independent Ukraine – but fascist Dictatorship of the BanderaJo0doe (talk) 14:36, 1 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Alex, Congratulations on the election results. You recently made edits on the

• I have answered on Talk:List_of_infantry_divisions_of_the_Soviet_Union_1917–1957#Narodnoye_Oplcheniye. Thanks for congratulations. As my girlfriend has said the second place is better than the first: you got some recognition but you do not have to do any additional work. Still I had a few important ideas and it is pity I could not promote them on the job. I have put the announcement on the top of the talk page mostly to prevent people from dropping by and swearing at Wing. He seems to be a nice guy and does not deserve this Alex Bakharev (talk) 02:18, 2 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Alex, you gave Maracana a clear warning not to contentiously edit certain infoboxes, unless there was clear consensus. However no consensus was achieved during the centralised discussion and Maracana is doing it all over again. I've lodged an incident: Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#Contentious_infobox_edits_by_User:Maracana

--

• I have given him the last warning. See the AN/I tread Alex Bakharev (talk) 05:02, 2 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

As you can see on my talk page and on the administrators noteboard, other admins are disagreeing with your fact-denying disaproval of my contributions. User:Maracana

If article or chapter of it based on book/work which available online and given in reference section of article – Is it necessary to put page number of book at every sentence in article? As for instance – source of article– online version of book already composed from sections and chapters (each – separate file) dedicated to specific events and time (15-70 page each) – is it enough to put at the bottom of article section ref to chapters (files) or I need to put ref on every sentence? If article based exclusively on one source available online but in single file – is it necessary to put page numbers every time? Jo0doe (talk) 05:59, 2 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• For FA articles we as a rule require page numbers (at least for the new reviews, in the past the requirements were less strict). Most of the other articles do not provide page numbers unless a specific fact is challenged and the book is really long (as a courtesy to fact checkers). I think reference to a particular chapter should be good enough unless you are preparing an article for a FA review. Still if somebody complains that he or she could not find the required material it is better to somehow help the fellow Alex Bakharev (talk) 06:14, 2 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

If the file is pdf and not image - is it Ctrl+F will be enough? what is FA articles ?

If you post a fact from a 50 page chapter you should have the decency to provide the page number so other editors don't have to hunt for it and can easily check it. Why is there a problem with this?Faustian (talk) 14:22, 2 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Moreover, if the source is not in the English language and the reader's computer doesn't enable one to type in Cyrillic, Ctrl+ F is useless.Faustian (talk) 14:34, 2 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

May by 19 or 12 pages? Only Poles has 76 - all for them given with page number. As regards cyrylyc - why they want to read refs? As far as refs must be inline with WP:RS policy and not as Krokhmaluk, Y (1973)? or Armstrong's (1962) - is'ntJo0doe (talk) 15:15, 2 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Despite being warned Jo0doe (talk) continues to be abusive: [7]. How long will this be allowed to continue?Faustian (talk) 13:26, 2 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Which one is abusive?Jo0doe (talk) 14:18, 2 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Which one continues to refer to other editors' contributions are "hoaxes" (basically, calling them liars), despite being warned not to do so?Faustian (talk) 14:23, 2 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I not called the editors' contributions - I called hoax book which does not exist and info which was referenced through it. I use WP hoax to choose this word - if you know a better one - please adviceJo0doe (talk) 15:10, 2 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

According to that link, "A hoax is a deliberate attempt to dupe, deceive or trick an audience into believing, or accepting, that something is real, when in fact it is not; or that something is true, when in fact it is false." So you are accusing another editor of lying which is abusive and violates assumption of good faith.Faustian (talk) 19:37, 2 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Guys, lets assume

good faith there. I have did a little bit of search on Krokhmaluk - the book is referenced in >10 Wikipedias, in three blog postings with references to Wikipedia and nowhere else. The supposed author Yury Tys-Krokhmaluk [8] thrice is mentioned on the book search as an Ukrainian-Canadian poet and fiction writer. It is not a red flag: a poet could write a serious history book and 1973 book can get below the Google-book radar, but it is a yellow flag. Nobody accusing any wikipedian in bad faith but we should check if the book really exists and it is a non-fiction book. Can we get an ISBN of the book? Alex Bakharev (talk) 22:10, 2 July 2008 (UTC)[reply

]

There is a list of places where it is cited in the Ukrainian Insurgent Army talk pages.Faustian (talk) 17:33, 4 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Please advice who care about

• Minority views can receive attention on pages specifically devoted to them—Wikipedia is not a paper encyclopedia. But on such pages, though a view may be spelled out in great detail, the article should make appropriate reference to the majority viewpoint wherever relevant, and must not reflect an attempt to rewrite majority-view content strictly from the perspective of the minority view.

How monority/majority gets?Jo0doe (talk) 15:11, 2 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

As for instance – in Ukraine exist Institute of History of National Academy of Science of Ukraine were exist Department of WWII history of Ukraine were worked dozens of Ph.D. (In History) which state what were deported from Western Ukraine from 1944 till 1950 – 143.141 “supporter of bandits” or from 1944 till 1949 115.820 “supporters” (figures based on declassified archives). At same time Canadian Historian know for sentence “you have to have visual impact” in US and for low quality of historical publications in Ukraine “estimate” number of deported from 1946 till 1949 as 500.000 – how he get this figure is unknown.

Same story with former Sovietologist – he claim about “soviet slaughtering” at Western Ukraine and given number of 250.676 arrested in Western Ukraine from February 1944 till May 1946. At same time Institute of History of National Academy of Science of Ukraine given figure for February 1944 till January 1946 – 24339 and for period from 1944 till 1956 - 103 866.Jo0doe (talk) 15:52, 2 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Separate your own assertions from facts, please. The facts are that the scholars whom you dismiss as "former Sovietologists" or "Canadian Historians" are or have been affiliated with Harvard, Princeton, etc.

• Harvard Ukrainian Research Institute? with Lebed's group published document collections that doctored historical texts to eliminate pro-German and antisemitic statements?Jo0doe (talk) 18:27, 2 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

One of them is the author of Encarta's encycledia entry on Ukraine. For example, the reference for the 250,000 arrests is from this document: [9], page 97. The author's CV is here: [10]. According to JoeDoe his work is a minority view?

As a reminder, per wikipedia policy, per

WP:RSUE

"Because this is the English Wikipedia, for the convenience of our readers, editors should use English-language sources in preference to sources in other languages, assuming the availability of an English-language source of equal quality, so that readers can easily verify that the source material has been used correctly. Where editors use a non-English source to support material that others are likely to challenge, or translate any direct quote, they need to quote the relevant portion of the original text in a footnote or in the article, so readers can check that it agrees with the article content. Translations published by reliable sources are preferred over translations made by Wikipedia editors."

The other editor does not even want to include page numbers for his references, much less translations or excerpts from the quotes in question.Faustian (talk) 16:16, 2 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

WP:HONEST?Jo0doe (talk) 18:27, 2 July 2008 (UTC)[reply

]

The irony here is that Burds, dismissed by Jo0doe (talk) as a "Sovietologist" or as a proponent of a minority viewpoint, first came to my attention through Jo0doe (talk) himself, when he selectively quoted from Burds' work to describe UPA atrocities against women: [11]. In the spirit of collaboration and more importantly objectivity, I integrated that information into the article but added info about Soviet atrocities also taken from Burds' work: [12]. That is when Jo0doe (talk) began disparaging Burds.Faustian (talk) 17:14, 2 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

WP:NPOV - good research becouse Burds used works and info published by Institute of History of National Academy of Science of Ukraine published in 1993-1996. I've put only that which was confirmed by other sources and avoid propagandistic claim as Советские органы также практиковали свою особую форму ритуального насилия и надругательства над трупами. Хотя в документах украинского националистического подполья мы не находим на это прямых указаний, рассказы литовских повстанцев, боровшихся с советской властью Jo0doe (talk) 18:27, 2 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

In other words, your original research (determining which stuff taken from Burds is good, which bad, acccording to your preference).Faustian (talk) 18:53, 2 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• See
  WP:NPOV A vital component: good research section for detailsJo0doe (talk) 06:42, 3 July 2008 (UTC)[reply
  ]

Alex - apologies from me if you feel we are cluttering your talk page with this issue.Faustian (talk) 18:53, 2 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This dispute is beyond my competence and authority (admins are suppose to be equal to non-admins in the content disputes). I would suggest to open an article WP:RFC. Can we have both sets of numbers in the article? Usually on En-Wikipedia if the English-language academic sources contradict other countries' sources the English-language sources win. The main reason is suspicion that non-English sources might be biased. I am not sure it works now, why on Earth would sources from the independent Ukraine be biased anti-Ukraine way? My advise is to use both sets of numbers and if it is unacceptable then have an RfC Alex Bakharev (talk) 22:19, 2 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I agree completely - to use both sets of numbers.Faustian (talk) 04:08, 3 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

So, dear Admin, could you please advice (or reccomend somebody ) who can able to provide an answer How monority/majority gets? - based on records in CV or based on number of historians which involved and the level of institution in which they currently has a post (not affilation). Could you explain what you mean under why on Earth would sources from the independent Ukraine be biased anti-Ukraine way? You assume Institute of History of National Academy of Science of Ukraine as anti-Ukrainian? May be you don't know - but they work accordingly to Ukrainian legislation which demand from them to provide reliable information. They got it from declassified archives - there no other data exist.

Could you comments - on following edits (in regards of figure mentioned above) inserting into artilce by conserned editor -

• Areas of UPA activity were depopulated... officially Soviet archives state that between 1944 and 1952 a total of 182,543 people [12] [77] to 500,000

Your Yevgeny Ukhnalyov DYK request requires a response. Please see Yevgeny Ukhnalyov DYK suggestion. Thanks. Bebestbe (talk) 19:31, 2 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Done Alex Bakharev (talk) 21:42, 2 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

First let me offer my congratulations in your excellent showing in the recent elections for the board of trustees - and I hope you didn't find the process too wearing! The rigorous nature of the questioning suprised me a bit - but we now have some very useful 'meta' wiki discussion over at those pages...

Secondly I've noticed your contributions to the recent discussions about arbcom, and wanted to draw your attention to this page - which may be a useful precursor to discussions on a cross-wiki project. I feel sure that some focused questions from a community leader such as yourself (I think this has clearly been shown to be true!) would really help the process....

cheers - and thanks for giving it some thought, Privatemusings (talk) 03:27, 3 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• I have put a few questions Alex Bakharev (talk) 14:58, 3 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Could you program your bot to do Portal:Kazakhstan/New article announcements? Thank you very much.--Boguslav (talk) 04:09, 3 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• I will do it over weekend Alex Bakharev (talk) 14:57, 3 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Books: Krokhmaluk, Y. (1973). UPA Warfare in Ukraine. New York: Vantage Press and Yuriy Tys-Krokhmaluk, UPA Warfare in Ukraine. New York, N.Y. Society of Veterans of Ukrainian Insurgent Army (Library of Congress Catalog Card Number 72-80823) are the same book.

First edition (private publication) Publisher: NY: Society of Veterans of Ukrainian Insurgent Army. Second edition (limited printing) – Publisher: NY:Vantage Press.

See www.abebooks.com (used book website) under “UPA Warfare in Ukraine”.

Not a mistake nor a HOAX! The hysterical ramblings of one editor completely UNNECESSARY! It really borders on uncivil behavior.Bobanni (talk) 04:19, 3 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

And it's a waste of other editors' time that could have been spent more constructively. But this is what happens when a disruptive editor is allowed to do his thing (and shame on me for actually taking his word for it and stating that I had made a mistake in that edit so long ago - I give others too much credit).Faustian (talk) 04:22, 3 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

So,actually, does Sobtelnyy and Magoci reccomed Second edition (limited printing) – Publisher: NY:Vantage Press.[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Ukrainian_Insurgent_Army/Archive_01#Several_allegations_I.27d_like_to_get_answer_to? as you claim here So UPA battle groups Black Forest and Makivka defeated 12 German battalions exist in Krokhmaluk, Y. (1973). UPA Warfare in Ukraine. New York: Vantage Press - so could you provide a page numbers? Could you prove what it's a WP:RS source = (private publication) and (limited printing).

Why

you only the publisher info is wrong and the year of publication is off by one year. This will be changed.Faustian (talk) 17:56, 1 July 2008 (UTC) .

- so you've not this book when including info to WP - when you got info if you've not bookJo0doe (talk) 06:17, 3 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Can't find 1973 - [13] Description: 2nd ed. 449p. Maps. Photos. Fine/Near Fine copy. Bookseller Inventory # 60-544

Bibliographic Details

Publisher: Vantage, 1972. Publication Date: 1972 Binding: Hard CoverJo0doe (talk) 08:14, 3 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Interesting details from [14]

• Comment - it should be noted that Vantage Press is/was a pioneering vanity press and anything published by them is not a reliable source in the least.

You're right, and the book in question wasn't published by them. I brought issue here not because of content dispute but because of Jo0doe (talk) 's repeated uncivil behavior.Faustian (talk) 19:12, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for holding it against me, that I took your word for it when you claimed that it wasn't published by Vantage Press.Faustian (talk) 12:48, 3 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Any comments from administrator about deliberately including not a reliable source and repeatedly posing such as reliable in WP? Jo0doe (talk) 08:47, 3 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

That book (not that edition) was cited by numerous reliable sources (according to wikipedia standards - published by university presses, by university professors) such as Magosci, Subtelny, etc. It was on the basis of the latter author's recommendations that I included some pieces of information from Krokhmaliuk's book in the article. And when I did so - I limited the contributions from Krokhmaliuk to episodes covered by Magosci. Jo0doe is engaged in original research as usual - he second-guesses what reliable sources do and chooses which of their info should be included or excluded, creating edit wars based on his personal preferences. So when a reliable source such as Burds or Magosci reference something from Krokhmaliuk in their books or articles, Joe tries to have that reference removed. It's part of his disruptive approach to wikipedia.Faustian (talk) 12:48, 3 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Once again, mentioned editor used book Krokhmaluk, Y. (1973). UPA Warfare in Ukraine. New York: Vantage Press which actually does not exist and used it repeatedly and many times at WP:RS, while existed books editions in 1972 (not in 1973) 1 and 2nd are not reliable sources accordingly to WP:RS rule (while you repeatedly noted them a reliable source)- both are private publications. Editor never used Masoci, Burds, Subtelnny, Zukov) (any more names exist?) to referenced the questioned many times and by many editors sentences. Moreover does any of them assessed Krokhmaluk, Y. as reliable source (page number please). Many historians used Völkischer Beobachter citations – but it does not mean what it’s a reliable source itself. I try to make WP history articles reliable (So sole editor oppose).and free of allegedly propaganda claims and modern sovietologist estimations in case were available proved by dozens real historians data. See WP:RS for details. I also got a concern what a sole editor actually has sources through which he referenced information included in WP – see Krokhmaluk, Y. and Armstrong “Ukrainian Nationalism” case. It’s actually engaging in OR. Jo0doe (talk) 05:31, 4 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

A note on the above - "modern sovietologist estimations" is the above editor's way of referring to the works of Jeffrey Burds who had access to and looked through the same archives as the editor's favorite sources..Faustian (talk) 17:08, 4 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

On 3 July, 2008, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Yevgeny Ukhnalyov, which you created or substantially expanded. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page .

--Gatoclass (talk) 06:41, 3 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Could you advice a mediator which assess the fairness of source citations: Just for instance – in article

• Despite the stated opinions of Dmytro Klyachkivsky and Roman Shukhevych that the Germans were a secondary threat compared to their main enemies; the Soviet partisans and Poles, the Third Conference of Organization of Ukrainian Nationalists held near Lviv 17-21 February 1943, adopted the decision to commence open warfare against the Germans,[

In source

• Despite the stated opinion by Stepnyak to prepare and commit wide appraisal against Germans the majority of delegates does not support such proposition and accordingly to visions of D.Klyachkivskyy (future commander of UPA) and R.Shukhevych, the main threat were Soviet partisans and Poles while actions against German should be conducted in form of “self defense for people”.

In article

• made numerous violently antisemitic statements. For example, in instructions to its members concerning how the OUN should behave during the war

In source OUN (B) General Instruction adopted in 1941 “

and a lot of similar instancesJo0doe (talk) 06:47, 3 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Alex can you investigate the manner of wikistalking and canvassing on behalf of that user wrt the article on Holodomor between User:Horlo and User:Hillock65.

In a separate request have a look at what happened to my excessive additions to

• I will try to look tomorrow Alex Bakharev (talk) 14:56, 3 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The checkuser was requested here. I wasn't going to say anything until I had the results, but with the US 3-day holiday, it might be a while for it to be addressed. Btw, how to request a range block, if it becomes necessary? - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 03:10, 4 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• I have semi-protected the article. I am not sure what the checkuser request is suppose to show. The IPs are already known. Do you think it is a sock of a banned user? Any admin can do a rangeblock but for this user we need an extremely wide range. I do not think any level of POV pushing justifies it Alex Bakharev (talk) 03:40, 4 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Weekly Delivery

You are receiving this message because you have signed up for the

Visit his user page. Go down, more down, under the party thing. There! Think you would like to answer him for those stuff, or at least know it's written their. Log in, log out (talk) 17:59, 6 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• I am not sure I want to censor his Userpage. Not because of his mild attack on me anyway. Not sure about M.V.E.I. though Alex Bakharev (talk) 22:01, 6 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Alex, I've posted this on the talk page but wanted to bring it to your specific attention - I think that this is a well-documented and clear example of original research which is probably deceptive in intent, regarding an editor I have discussed before. One of the things that Jo0doe wants to place in the article (and had been constantly reverting for months) is the following [15][16]:

"Accordingly to documents presented to the International Military Tribunal documents Ukrainian organizations (OUN(B)) which are working with Amt Abwehr have same (as Nazi’s) “objectives”, namely, the Poles and the Jews [47]. Such “objects” described as “all farms and dwelling of the Poles should go up in flames, and all Jews be killed” [48]. "

Fortunately the references are available on-line (although Jo0doe did not provide the on-line reference - I wonder why). The first reference is here: [17] and the second reference here: [18].

Now let's look at what Jo0doe tried to do with those two documents. As we have seen, he tried to make an edit to the article asserting that according to documents presented to the International Military Tribunal Ukrainian organizations working with the Abwehr had the same goals as the Nazis with respect to Jews and Poles including all Polish dwellings going up in flames and all Jews killed. The "evidence" for this are:

• a transcript of an interview [19]in which an Austrian officer describes in 1945, a conversation he overheard six years earlier in 1939 between Keitel and Canaris with no OUN members (or any Ukrainians) present, in which Keitel is overheard stating "You, Canaris, have to promote an uprising with the aid of the Ukrainian organizations which are working with you and which have the same objectives, namely, the Poles and the Jews." This bit of information is the basis for Jo0doe writing "Accordingly to documents presented to the International Military Tribunal documents Ukrainian organizations (OUN(B)) which are working with Amt Abwehr have same (as Nazi’s) “objectives”, namely, the Poles and the Jews..." into the article.

• another excerpt from the interview [20] in which Ribbentrop is said to be planning an instigation of Galician Ukraine aimed at the extermination of Poles and Jews. According to the interviewed officer, in 1945 he stated that he overheard in 1939 Ribbentrop say to Canaris "...that the uprising should be so staged that all farms and dwellings of the Poles should go up in flames, and all Jews be killed."

So on the basis of conversations between German officials recalled six years after the conversation, the reader is led by Jo0doe to believe that OUN and Nazi policies towards the Jews were the same and the goal was extermination of the Jews "Accordingly to documents presented to the International Military Tribunal".

It's more than just original research - it's deceitful use of primary sources. And unfortunately, it fits a longstanding pattern of this person's edits. So what can be done about this persistent behavior?Faustian (talk) 23:10, 6 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure why

• I do not object to shortening M.V.E.i/'s block he has made a lot of productive edits but also used to be very disruptive but I am against using sockpuppeting to avoid bans especially if disruption continues. Alex Bakharev (talk) 00:52, 8 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

But the thing is that I think that

• Well I got two Email messages today. One from a user that specifying the common spelling mistakes between User:M.V.E.i. and User:Log in, log out the other from User:Log in, log out himself there he stated his identity. I am not sure if it is ethical from me to use the private message from a user against him, but even the first message is quite convincing. In the hindsite the common traits of two accounts appear to be quite obvious, I should probably recognize them earlier Alex Bakharev (talk) 06:34, 8 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for clearing that up, I do feel stupid now... I see in

Thanks for tweaking the rules. MrKIA11 (talk) 10:01, 10 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I added -20 /\Wdisambiguation\W/ to the rules, and yet Richard Grey (disambiguation) came up. I went in the log, and for that page it only shows the positive points for matching video game, but not the negative for having disambiguation. What did I do wrong? MrKIA11 (talk) 15:39, 18 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The bot only looks for the text of the article, not the title. I have added rules to catch {{disambig}}, {{hmndis}} and similar Alex Bakharev (talk) 23:30, 18 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. MrKIA11 (talk) 23:30, 18 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Why has the bot not added any pages for the past 2 days? MrKIA11 (talk) 05:23, 27 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Nevermind, it just did. It just missed one day for some reason. MrKIA11 (talk) 05:52, 27 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It missed 4 days again. Why? MrKIA11 (talk) 20:50, 30 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Alex is away on vacations. Colchicum (talk) 21:43, 30 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, thanks. So the bot is not automated? MrKIA11 (talk) 20:22, 31 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I think Colchicum just meant that Alex himself won't be around to read these messages until 9 August. I don't know how his bot works, but something must have happened to it. JIP | Talk 20:27, 31 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, thanks. MrKIA11 (talk) 20:38, 31 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This thing has some kind of funky bug. MrKIA11 (talk) 17:10, 1 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The bot has returned the same results 7 times in a row (it actually archived itself the last time). I hope these problems are just from some minor glitch that you can fix. MrKIA11 (talk) 14:54, 8 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I admit to sinking to his level of insults by being rude (calling him a liar, calling out his dishonesty) after weeks of provocations, although at least everything I have said about him (although uncivil) has been true and I backed it all up with evidence. And it was done in reaction to his unpunished abuse by repeatedly referring to my edits as "hoaxes" - in other words, calling me a liar [21]. Now he's descended into libelling me as a "holocaust denier." Please see [22]:

So, actually, you attempt to put other editor in misconception and challenged the reliability of USA Prosecution facts at IMT tribunal. So you claim what you unable to find words “organizations which are working with Amt Abwehr have same (as Nazi’s) “objectives”, namely, the Poles and the Jews? and all farms and dwelling of the Poles should go up in flames, and all Jews be killed”. Or you suppose what such facts related to TWO DIFFERENT events? Actually it’s clear attempts of Holocaust denier- because facts about “objectives” and “all Jews be killed” were included in charge of both Nazi criminals.

(I bolded the text)

After which among numerous examples he refers to me as "...an editor which challenged the reliability of USA Prosecution at IMT tribunalJo0doe (talk) 07:17, 10 July 2008 (UTC)" throughout the talk pages.

Jo0doe has already disregarded warnings. Yes he has escalated his abusiveness. How long will he be allowed to continue this behavior?Faustian (talk) 18:04, 10 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

And it gets worse. Recently, he has been adding unconstructive or nasty comments to my attempts to engage other editors in discussing the suitability of sources, as in here: [26] where he added, in references to the book's authors, "age of “researchers” 31, 26, 27 and origin – all as one from Lemberg reflect the questionability as for reliability as for NPOV of authors. "Scientific worker" – copy machine operator? @Center for Research on the Liberation Movement@ was appeared 1,6 years ago – so post “director” does not mean anything while roughly equivalent to a Ph.D.) of history reflect the quality of Ukrainian education ".

Basically, Jo0doe seems to be going out of his way to poison the atmosphere of that page.

Is he going to be allowed to get away with it?Faustian (talk) 19:13, 10 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

User:M.V.E.i. is now recreated as User:Media Sapiens. He has the same grammar and spelling mistakes, makes the same strange political statements and appeared right after his latest incarnation had been banned. Please have a look at his talk page. --Hillock65 (talk) 21:46, 10 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Blocked Alex Bakharev (talk) 22:18, 10 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'm rather tired of certain user continuing

As I understand, Halibutt thinks that removing references like this constitutes a vandalism. I agree that the word is very unfortunate but can you elaborate what was wrong with the references in the first place? Alex Bakharev (talk) 21:30, 11 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Another one

WP:PA on my talk page - [27]

.

As for what I do find wrong with the provided, let's call it "references" - I did request a citation back in November 2007 to have at least a full sentence to

feed trolls, but this is getting annoing, since it is a long time story which you did get involved once. Thanks for hearing me out.--Lokyz (talk) 22:00, 11 July 2008 (UTC)[reply

]

P.S another diff that explains a bit the story.--Lokyz (talk) 22:08, 11 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I have given Halibutt a warning. I hope he will stop Alex Bakharev (talk) 00:06, 12 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I don't believe Polish spelling is important there, but it doesn't hurt the article. Lokyz removing good articles is violating

I did not remove, only move those "references" to talk page after a several months wait after request to provide quotations to

verify support of the claim on Polonized form of the name. Instead of quotations I did get multiple personal attacks.--Lokyz (talk) 10:37, 12 July 2008 (UTC)[reply

]

Sorry, Alex, but it's a waste of time. Too many times has Lokyz remove valid references just because he didn't like them. He is known for moving the articles against consensus, removing valid references, offending me on numerous occasions and so on. I see no need to waste my time on browsing through the references once again, only to see them removed on some other grounds. I have yet to see Lokyz work towards some compromise solution.

As to Piotrus' suggestion, I could live with that. However, only if we removed the modern Lithuanian spelling from the lead as well. After all the guy himself did not know that name he is currently known with in Lithuania. Let's use the name the guy used himself both in the lead and the title, and we'll all be fine. Otherwise the Polish name should stay in the lead. //Halibutt 11:52, 13 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Sice Last time I've asked a question the situation has evolved, a warning didn't help. no new articles, only provoking.--Lokyz (talk) 23:38, 20 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Indeed, since you have not gotten a warning. I will rectify this in a second.--_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 17:39, 21 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I think thta Piotrus is overusing his admin powers protecting users who are

civility advocate. --Lokyz (talk) 19:41, 21 July 2008 (UTC)[reply

]

Lapsed Pacifist (talk) 07:19, 13 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Weekly Delivery

You are receiving this message because you have signed up for the

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

1. Go to
   di-replaceable fair use disputed
   }}, 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

Dear Alex: Could you please help me in getting a steward (or whoever is appropriate) check the IP addresses of the sock puppets quoted here. None of these accounts belongs to me, and this is some kind of provocation. I actually do not care at all about participating in ru_wikipedia, but it bothers me that somebody creates sock puppets which are later attributed to me and then confirmed as my sockpuppets by the arbitration committee. I did not participate in ru_wikipedia since my one year ban. User:Wulfson and User:Wind are the members of the arbitration committee and the checkusers, so they know very well that these accounts do not have any intersections with mine. User:Serebr told me that User:DR checked one of these accounts and found an intersection with an "active user". I would not speculate who exactly organized this provocation, but it is pretty clear that this is some kind of plot of the "party of operators", and User:Wulfson and User:Wind may be involved. Therefore it is clear that this matter should be delegated to an independent referee. Should it be a steward or some other authority? Could you please advise me? I would also highly appreciate if you could forward my request to this person. I need an official confirmation that these sock puppets do not intersect with my account User:SMARTASS. User:Wulfson can give this authority all my IP addresses which he obtained during numerous (and unjustified) checks. I would also like to ask that the steward (or other appropriate authority) inspects the logs of ru_wikipedia checkuser activity with respect to my accounts. I highly appreciate your help. SA ru (talk) 21:55, 15 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Smart, I am afraid it would not work. The decisions by project arbcoms are suppose to be final unless they are really terrible. It does not look like be the case. Sockpuppet identification is an imprecise science. Checkuser's results are only additional clues, the main evidence is the editorial history. Since your contributions are in Russian only Russophone checkuser could help you. There are Russophone stewards but I believe you have history of conflicts with all of them. I am sorry, but it looks like you have to start to work on another project Alex Bakharev (talk) 23:28, 15 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Alex, I could not care less about the decision of the arbitration committee. All I want is a confirmation that my IP does not intersect with the IPs of the presumed sock puppets. The "imprecise science" is not an issue here, as well. In any way, I see that you are a polititian. So ciao. SA ru (talk) 23:37, 15 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Well, chiao, then. I was trying to give you info to the best of my knowledge. No checkuser can prove user innocence - it costs pennies to change the internet provider, it costs nothing to change the IP if change your employer or school, etc. On the other hand it is not uncommon for two users to share the same ISP or the same place of education so the common IP range by itself does not prove anything. BTW, the only way you can be sure that yours IPs does not intersect the IPs of any user is if you know the user in the real life or if you are that user. That is why the checkusers are not to be done to prove somebody's innocence, at least on En-wiki. Chiao, anyway Alex Bakharev (talk) 02:40, 16 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • Alex, this is all correct, and you are actually repeating my own statements. I called you a polititian because, after I clearly told you that I have nothing to do with these sockpuppets, you still started to side with the ruling party. And remember that I worked in Wikipedia for quite a lot, and I know all these things very well. To make it clear, I do not care about all these speculations. You or these guys can speculate as much as you/them want. My only request is that I get a statement that my IP address does not intersect with these sock puppets. If you still remember how to read in Russian and know anything about my writing style you can check the contribution of these puppets and see for yourself that there is no resemblance to me at all. We can certainly continue this conversation, but please try to stay away from the wiki-mania and think straight. By the way -- remember when you spammed during your election and recruited votes? This may be the time for you to pay back. Or are you a polititian for real and never pay back? SA ru (talk) 09:20, 16 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Alex, Is Comrade Medvedev a taboo article here? It looks like you have never heard about Shpilkin's analysis. Here is the link. SA ru (talk) 00:07, 18 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Comrade Medvedev is not a taboo, just reference you edits. Thats all Alex Bakharev (talk) 01:41, 18 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• I have copied your text to
  Fairness_of_Russian_presidential_election,_2008#Statistical_analysis_of_the_election_reports, if you could add a couple of sentences here it would be great. I am not sure that the text should be in the main Medvedev article - it is just an opinion of one analyst. Alex Bakharev (talk) 01:57, 18 July 2008 (UTC)[reply
  ]
  • There is an article about this on the site entered to Wikipedia spam list, but the site currently has a problem. I will re-read the article after the site is repaired and try to write a summary. However, this is NOT an opinion of one analyst. Andrei Illarionov said the same thing. Statistical patterns of falsified elections are well known. SA ru (talk) 02:17, 18 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Yep, it seems traditio.ru it is on the global spamlist. By itself it is not a
      Fairness of Russian presidential election, 2008
      . If all the participant agree that your material is brief and neutral enough then it is OK with me. If it would cause an editorial war it should go. That i it
      • Are you OK? It looks like an earthquake started in Australia while you were writing. I have to look up the article on traditio.ru just to refresh my memory. No lengthy descriptions here. SA ru (talk) 02:41, 18 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        • Actually I did not realized that traditio was on the global (meta) spamlist, so I had to edit the first sentence after failing to save my response. There is no earthquake there I am writing Alex Bakharev (talk) 03:27, 18 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
          • I think Rombik and MaxSem used their connections to put traditio on the spam list. (I am not completely sure.) Traditio does not spam, though. This is just political censorship. Did it become common for Wikipedia? SA ru (talk) 09:07, 18 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
            • • • Traditio as all wikies is not a reliable source. Some sites that are not reliable sources but persistently added as such (like livejournal, myspace, etc.) are (or have been) on the spam list. Another possible reason for spamlisting of a site is persistent attacks on Wikipedia editors. See
                  WP:BADSITES (for the rationale behind this). I am not sure what meaning of political censoring you assume. If you are talking about the real life politics then I think the answer is no. Wikipedia is trying to be political neutral. At any rate we never block reliable sources whatever color they are. If you are talking about competition (marketing) the answer is no we do not restrict access to competing projects. Our goal is to improve access to the sum of the human knowledge, not promoting ourselves. If you are talking about thew inter-wiki politics then we do restrict promotion of the attack sites. Particularly virulent, deplorable, or hostile websites, may be placed on the spam blacklist for the safety and well-being of all Wikipedia users. Name it censorship if you like. I am not sure traditio is on that level though Alex Bakharev (talk) 11:27, 18 July 2008 (UTC)[reply
                  ]
                  • I think it was blacklisted as an attack site. It indeed has a whole segment of wiki-criticism and wiki-humor devoted to Wikipedia and some notable authors/administrators/trolls etc. Nothing particularly bad, and it is free to edit for anyone, so any errors can be corrected. Politically -- and I am not particularly interested in that part (this may interest you more than me) -- it represents certain Russian movements, which may in fact be of great encyclopedic interest for the readers. SA ru (talk) 11:45, 18 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

{{vacation}}

Dear Alex, I am stunned with the absence of any editing due to my request (also noticed by my colleague IP-87.240.15.30 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/87.240.15.30 The material is edited. Joining him and reasonably asking you to take of the restriction "Resume", as long as I know, Pavlovsky does not intend on any other working market other than the one that belongs to Russia, and the article carries strictly informational & encyclopedic characteristic. I myself will soon be in Russia, and I hope I will have the oppertunity to meet Pavlovsky in person. One more time I ask you curteously to take of the restrictions at the top of the page. Please forgive me for any trouble or taking time out of your busy schedule. Thank you!--Altamal (talk) 22:00, 20 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Have a look at

]

Signpost updated for July 14 and 21, 2008.

Weekly Delivery

Volume 4, Issue 29	14 July 2008	About the Signpost

From the editor: Transparency
WikiWorld: "Goregrind"	Dispatches: Interview with botmaster Rick Block
Features and admins	Bugs, Repairs, and Internal Operational News
The Report on Lengthy Litigation

Volume 4, Issue 30	21 July 2008	About the Signpost

WikiWorld: "Cartoon physics"	News and notes: New Board Chair, compromised accounts
Dispatches: History of the featured article process	Features and admins
Bugs, Repairs, and Internal Operational News	The Report on Lengthy Litigation

Single-Page View	WP:POST

You are receiving this message because you have signed up for the

Please see [28]. I would like to have your opinion if possible, thanks!Faustian (talk) 18:55, 28 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

At least @ Wikipedia:WikiProject Ships/New articles there hasn't been any updates the past two days. I know you're on holiday but thought you should know. --Brad (talk) 16:31, 30 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It's not working for Wikiproject Finland either. It hasn't shown any new articles in four days. JIP | Talk 18:53, 31 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Зашел сюда случайно, из русской WIKI и что я вижу? На далеком Зеленом континенте нашелся желающий "держать и не пущать"))) Не позорьтесь, Alex.... Снимите Ваш шаблон про резюме. Перестаньте мстить бывшим соотечественникам В данном случае Они ничего кроме хорошего не сделали. Могли бы , по старой памяти, порадоваться... Тем более, что это Ваше "резюме", простите, - бред полный. Google еще не описал весь мир. Смиритесь с этим, как и с наличием понятия презумции невиновности. Не вводите в соблазн вандализма незарегистрированных юзеров))))) И ведь не я первый, кто к Вам обратился, но .... Тишина))))--194.186.53.116 (talk) 02:43, 7 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]