User talk:Greggerr

Hello, Greggerr, and

• The five pillars of Wikipedia
• How to edit a page
• Help pages
• Tutorial
• How to write a great article
• Manual of Style

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a

Again, welcome! —dima/talk/ 15:46, 23 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hi there. In case you didn't know, when you add content to

talk pages and Wikipedia pages that have open discussion, you should sign your posts by typing four tildes ( ~~~~ ) at the end of your comment. On many keyboards, the tilde is entered by holding the Shift key, and pressing the key with the tilde pictured. You may also click on the signature button located above the edit window. This will automatically insert a signature with your name and the time you posted the comment. This information is useful because other editors will be able to tell who said what, and when. Thank you! --SineBot 16:01, 15 November 2007 (UTC)[reply

Hello Greggerr, if you are interested in continuing to improve the Ukraine article, please see this. By the way, try not to remove ((fact)) templates, Miyokan (who did an amazing job with Russia) was asked to insert them, so that we knew what needed citation. Regards, Bogdan ^що? 20:59, 15 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Certainly adding twenty of these templates to a three paragraph section was not needed. I am amazed, and at the same time extaordinarily happy, that Miyokan has such a profound interest in developing the Ukraine article and assuring that it is well referenced. Unless his goal is something more sinister, like violating

WP:NPOV

.

Thank you Greggerr for redirecting the pisanka page to egg decorating. Ostap 01:05, 16 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hey, thanks for the award but I think you have the wrong person. It was all Bogdan. Anyway, regards and I look forward to seeing you around. Ostap 02:11, 27 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hi,

I'm looking to add gross external debt figures, given how topical it has become, since the USA sub prime crisis started in August.

Any chance you or other experienced Wikipedians could help me out ? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 58.111.226.194 (talk) 05:07, 16 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

About your remarks at

Indeed, looking over the article I think in the current shape it's worse than it was a few months ago, and it needs to be cleaned up following at least a month long edit war. Second, aggregation of regions into groups is an original research. If you disagree, please provide a reliable source which does such aggregation. Best,

Greggerr (talk) 01:16, 24 February 2008 (UTC)[reply

]

Please look at

talk) 01:42, 24 February 2008 (UTC)[reply

]

Thanks for your input one the Ukrainian Election. The Wikipedia pages are very much been hiujcked by those supportoive of the Ukrainian presidents political forces ad do ot preset a factural NPOV. This is evident by the fact that facutaul statements and immages that preset a balance to the article are constently removed and comments in favour of the presidential parties are rfetaied or added. The so called "Orange revolution" ceased to exsit following the collapse of negotitaios between Our Ukraie ad BYuT and the SPU. Our Ukraine beig the main cause for the collapse resulting in the SPU resolving to support the formation a governing coalition between PoR ad the CPU.

What is missing from the article is a clear statement and indication that the presidential decree dissmal of the previous parlianment was the subject of a challenge i Ukraine's Constitutional Court. This is not a side line issue and one that proponents of the president want to deny or water down. It is very much a fundamental issue to the elcection and the ongoig political crisis facing Ukraine.

This division is not uncommon. However, did you add up numbers by the regions? Did you calculate the percentages by the regions? If so, you did original research. The idea of Wikipedia is not to present your research, but to present facts and statements already published in reliable sources. Central Election Committee of Ukraine reports election results by oblasts and so we do. --

Greggerr (talk) 00:44, 27 February 2008 (UTC)[reply

]

To answer the above questions NO. The table in reference was derived from the Ukrainian Wikipedia results and verifed by lookig at teh officval elction results page. The results i percentage tersm are what was publihsed by the Ukrainain Electoral Authority. I also did a summary of the offical results to verify. Adding up and tabulating results DOES NOT CONSTITUTE ORIGINAL RESEARCH... IT IS EASILY VERIFIABLE. http://www.cvk.gov.ua/pls/vnd2007/W6P001 ad http://www.cvk.gov.ua/pls/vnd2006/W6P001

PLEASE STOP and LOOK TWICE before you vandalise Wikipedia pages again and publish false facts and misleading data and then criticise someone for correcting your mistakes. Kurtdaydo (talk) 00:23, 8 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Slow down, and read

Greggerr (talk) 02:35, 8 March 2008 (UTC)[reply

]

Sorry to drop in like this :). But I like to point out that

talk) 00:17, 9 March 2008 (UTC)[reply

]

Sorry kazak, but you wrong in claiming that I removed the merger tag from "a series of articles". I removed the tag for one merge proposal after two weeks of no activity. Second, it does not really matter, but if you don't like the original title, you are expected to initiate a

Greggerr (talk) 19:29, 12 March 2008 (UTC)[reply

]

Well the discussion has been dead about the title, however I do recall that my entry at the talk page was the most recent, in any case I have answered your query on my talk page about the lead paragraph. Do you wish to attempt to merge them? --

Kuban Cossack 19:53, 12 March 2008 (UTC)[reply

]

The scope of the articles is different. One is about "a series of conflicts", the other is about a particular conflict.

The usage of term Ukrainian with respect to

Greggerr (talk) 21:48, 12 March 2008 (UTC)[reply

]

Yes, but that would imply that we are writing the article from a UPR POV? Right? In that case with respect to neutrality of wikipedia, this title is unsuitable. Many military sources that are not politically centred simply imply this as the Ukrainian theatre (front) of the Russian Civil War, or the Ukrainian Civil War. And yes Makhno had more support from Ukrainian peasents than all of the UPR governments put together. --

Kuban Cossack 14:05, 13 March 2008 (UTC)[reply

]

Thank you for the pointer to Kandidate Nauk. My problem is that the last sentence says "roughly" equivalent to PhD. Adjectives bother me a lot when they are not substantiated by a reference. There is an international group that decides what is equal to what when people accredited in one sphere try to move to another realm. This "roughly" should not exist. I will copy the reference here. However, I knew of a situation in an American university where a degree (probably this one from the old Soviet Union) was challenged. An international referee who decides these things said it was not equivalent to a doctorate and the person was demoted! I think we need more than an encyclopedia from the old Soviet Union as a reference for this. I don't believe it! Student7 (talk) 23:55, 13 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

My impression of American educational system is that it's much less bureaucratic and more informal. If I understand correctly, PhD recognition works on case by case basis. A degree to be recognized should be supported by publications, and other records of achievement. I don't know of a single international group that decides what is equal to what. The final decision is up to a University. If so, "roughly" is a close description of the reality. On the other hand, the statement "This degree is roughly equivalent to the Ph.D. in the United States" is somewhat redundant, given that the issue is covered in

Greggerr (talk) 02:37, 14 April 2008 (UTC)[reply

]

Sorry to intrude, but the topic is very interesting. I know of one international "group" that tries to set standards, it is the most bureaucratic one to this day - European Union. But it does so only to EU-member states degrees, and the practice is only in the incipient stages. In most countries (with the exception of the USA) there exist legal stipulation on the procedures needed to get a foreign degree equivalent to a domestic one. So, without these legal procedures, the word "roughly" is badly needed, IMHO.

Different countries in the world have established ways to deal with foreign degrees. For example in France, prior to being enrolled, even prior to being allowed to take part in a competition in for a job at any public university, one has to have a "qualification" from the state. The procedure and rigor differs very much from domain to domain. It is a formality for natural sciences, but it is extremely regurous for medicine, etc. In the US, indeed, the practice is that the university/hiring committee would judge on a case by case basis. However, noone hires a Kandidate Nauk solely on the basis of the diploma, rather on the basis of the whole previous professional activity, mainly publications. The diploma is more or less a formality, one thing in a list that will be checked.

Now, the custom is to consider Kandidate Nauk roughly equivalent to PhD in the western system and Doktor Nauk to Habilitation (Habilitation is a practice that still exists in some countries like Germany, and surely is well understood by most of academia). The rigor for Doktor Nauk in the former USSR was very high in natural sciences, and this sort-of determined the usage. Although obviously, noone is going to consider a Kandidate Nauk in "nauchnyi communism" equivalent to anything. Dc76\^talk 16:27, 23 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It seems you have asked me a question here. In short, yes I think we should launch a formal review of the fair-use rationale, but at the momant it would be better if we focus on appealing to sensible users to stop that abuse. I left my thoughts on the talk page, if you want you can email me to discusss it further. Cheers.--Hillock65 (talk) 10:52, 15 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hi! I noticed you take interest in

Racism and discrimination in Ukraine article. I was wondering if you have an opinion about the poster. If so, could you please state clearly whether you are against or for this poster and why. Please look for the very bottom of the page for other opinions. I am about to launch a complaint to admins about that user's discructive editing against the consensus of so far 3 editors. Your opinion in this matter will be very valuable and appreciated. Thank you. --Hillock65 (talk) 20:15, 17 April 2008 (UTC)[reply

]

What concensus Greggerr? 2 vs 2 is not a concensus.--

The policy,

Greggerr (talk) 01:13, 18 April 2008 (UTC)[reply

]

What concensus? Stop invoking policy and saying it's concensus. I can invoke

talk) 01:14, 18 April 2008 (UTC)[reply

]

Read the

Greggerr (talk) 01:21, 18 April 2008 (UTC)[reply

]

Thanks for admitting that you were lying.--

talk) 01:26, 18 April 2008 (UTC)[reply

]

You are a funny guy :) 01:41, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

Nice edit/improvements you have done to this article. I ahve 2 question and 1 request, if i may:

1) Is there anywhere in 2001 Ukrainian census data for every locality of the Chernivtsi Oblast? Or at least for some major ones. Is there anywhere a complete exact list of localities of the region?

2) you made a lot of changes in a single edit. Perhaps, if I may suggest, you could in the future, split such edits into 3-4 consecutive ones. To some people, a lot of read when they compare versions means a controversial edit. Now, if one has patience and compares what has been done, then in the case of your edit it becomes very obvious that everything has been done in good faith. If I may suggest, by splitting an edit into small pieces, helps keep at bay intolerant users that only wait to revert.

3) I do not understand the reason for the "irrelevant" tag in History section. Obviously you mean something else from what I understand. Perhaps you could explain me more. My understanding is that the region was created in 1940, so the stuff there fits precisely. But, then, I also do see a lot of details about some things and very little about other things. I'd rather support expanding of the section than removal of information. But, then, obviously I admit that there maybe other ways to look at this. Therefore I am asking you.

Thank you. Dc76\^talk 16:40, 23 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hi! If you are looking for population structure by nationality, I'm only aware of the data by raions. Actually, user:mikka found the data for Chernivtsi Oblast, which are in the article now. The total number of residents for every locality of Ukraine (2001 census data) is available:

• 2001 Ukrainian census, Population Structure (in Ukrainian)

List of all localities in Ukraine (up to date):

• Regions of Ukraine and its composition (in Ukrainian)

I was not sure about the "irrelevant" tag. It was initially added by user:Irpen and removed by you. The tag is there to point out that Chernivtsi Oblast is a modern administrative unit created in 1940, while the history section is going way back in time, repeating what is already stated in

Greggerr (talk) 14:22, 24 April 2008 (UTC)[reply

]

Why? It is already in the "Print Sources" section. Bogdan ^що? 01:42, 29 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, Gregger! Kiev Governorate indeed remained comprised of one province (Kiev Province), and it was not the only Governorate "subdivided" in such a manner—Revel, Riga, Smolensk, and Astrakhan Governorates were all comprised of only one province as well. Unlike provinces of other Governorates, however, Kiev was divided not into uyezds but into regiments (which had autonomous rights). Hope this helps.—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); 14:38, 29 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Как это или это делается?--SeNeKa (talk) 14:02, 26 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

1. Volodymyr Stelmakh - Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

Thanks!--DASHBot (talk) 05:47, 16 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hi,
You appear to be eligible to vote in the current