User talk:Lvivske

About Neo Nazism in Ukraine

I have a lot of material about neo nazism in Ukraine, you seem to be pro of that kind , I will put this matter on wiki courts in order to make sure that you are biased and do not let others write which goes opposite to your ideas. I am waiting an answer that why you have put my article o put my article for deletion ?

I think this comment is not objective and serves aggressive plans of Russia.

To me these guys (Right Sector) look more like patriots, not like far-right nationalists. Nationalists usually fight for one-nation country. RS has members of different nationalities and respects people of all nations and races. I wondered what they were fighting for. I was finally convinced that RS fights for a prosperous, democratic, and technically advanced state Ukraine. RS is a very young organization which is the result of the self-organization of people on Maidan. All groups on Maidan forgot about their differences and united to protect their country from corrupted regime and preserve democratic institutions. It is an example of a true patriotism, not nationalism. Plus they have wonderful relations with other neighboring countries of Ukraine which are not aggressors. If Russia could communicate normally to other counties instead of moving armies, RS would respond adequately and friendly relations would be established. RS members are in their majority smart people; they would not want to see Russia weak and dying; balance of power is always a good thing to have plus some threats at Far East are getting stronger exponentially. I truly hope RS will have no need to fight against anybody anymore.

Phil Jacques (talk) 16:26, 9 March 2014 (UTC)

RS is a very interesting organization, and as you pointed out, it's young. I think it's not right how some users go on a smear campaign. The group is far too young to be labelled this and that. They are a coalition of several groups, many far right, and it'll be interesting to see which aspects of those groups make it into the official party doctrine when they get into politics. --Львівське (говорити) 19:50, 9 March 2014 (UTC)

An apology

Sorry about this but the section had become a "parody on NPOV". — Yulia Romero • Talk to me! 16:55, 11 December 2013 (UTC)

Parody on NPOV? What in particular? I didn't see anything, everything was cited, it was pretty basic before my recent edit...--Львівське (говорити) 17:07, 11 December 2013 (UTC)

I was referring to this version of the article that mentioned nothing about Vitaliy Zakharchenko statement "I want to calm everyone down: there will be no dispersal of Maidan". — Yulia Romero • Talk to me! 17:15, 11 December 2013 (UTC)

I don't think a section being incomplete implies pushing a point of view or a lack of neutrality. Ends up we were both working on beefing up things once we digested the rest of the news and statements.--Львівське (говорити) 17:20, 11 December 2013 (UTC)

Watch out for charging White Rhinocerososes's

You never know when they're going to charge, or where they're gonna come from. Overcitation in order to counter anachronistic information in online dictionaries, online EB, online answers, ad nauseum. Everything is sourced from The British Empire's "My First Encyclopaedia", 1911 edition.

Lol! I was utterly stunned at seeing certain names coming up sans histrionics. Thought you were working on both simultaneously. I'd walked into upside-down world! Oops. Have I given away the fact that I can be acerbic? --Iryna Harpy (talk) 01:57, 19 December 2013 (UTC)

what was up with all of those refs? i checked them and non even mentioned white russia...--Львівське (говорити) 02:08, 19 December 2013 (UTC)

I'd had to slog it out with the guy who'd reversed the 'archaic' and/or 'anachronistic' term on his talk page. He was adamant that it is a current term interchangeable with Belarus as per his removal of my use of 'anachronistic' which he changed to:
"The eastern part of present-day Belarus, including the cities of Polotsk, Vitebsk, and Mogilev, is known as White Russia (alternatively White Rus' or White Ruthenia); it is situated in the historical region of Ruthenia or Rus'. The name is a translation of Belaya Rus' (Belarusian: Белая Русь, literally meaning "White Rus'"), and is sometimes used synonymously of Belarus as a whole."

I was put in a position where I had to counter the American Heritage Dictionary that White Russia and Belarus were not one and the same thing and, to add to that, both terms for Belarus were equally valid. As he was adamant that it must be understood to be received knowledge in the English language, I did go a little overboard in order to make the point that White Russia is not used as an alternative, interchangeable name for Belarus. I did mean to go back and kill off the overcitation once I'd driven the final nail into the coffin. Let it not be said that I do anything in a half-arsed manner, although it can certainly be said that I'm getting senile and can forget to fix up mad messes I've made. Показала йому дулю, та пішла собі гулять... --Iryna Harpy (talk) 04:59, 19 December 2013 (UTC)

He's kind of right, I mean, Bela Rus does mean White Rus / White Ruthenia; but not White Russia...unless you're speaking Russian (Белоруссия). So yeah, he's right....but as it says, Ruthenia is an historic term, ergot, White Ruthenia would also be an historic term. It's historic but it's also the translation of the contemporary state's name...which makes it WP:OR since it's never referred to as such in English.--Львівське (говорити) 05:21, 19 December 2013 (UTC)

It was the Ruthenia/Russia issue I was debating over with him. To the best of my recollection (he wipes his talk page regularly), his wife is Russian and he was the one who believed it to be a literal translation of 'Белоруссия' (or, as I've often heard Russian speakers referring to it as, "Белороссия" in the vernacular). My only recourse was to make an issue of the English language usage of the name which is, per WP:COMMON, Belarus over White 'Russia'. It may have been merely a technicality, but he wasn't prepared to allow me to use 'anachronism' without citations for the use Belarus. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 05:45, 19 December 2013 (UTC)

the two oxford ones are good enough, they say 'former' and 'dated' --Львівське (говорити) 05:50, 19 December 2013 (UTC)

Just don't check against any other dictionaries. I promise I won't tell if you don't. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 06:10, 19 December 2013 (UTC)

1992 iihf world juniors

Hey, just wondering what the evidence for this team being called soviet union is. The iihf in story 59 says they finished as CIS, and their encyclopedia awards the medal for that year to CIS. Do you have some other evidence to the contrary?.18abruce (talk) 19:30, 22 December 2013 (UTC)

I've opened a question on the wikiproject here --Львівське (говорити) 19:36, 22 December 2013 (UTC)

Good move, I had no intent of starting an argument. I think a discussion already happened once about three years ago, but I don't know if it was conclusive, and I don't mind being wrong if there is evidence for it. Additionally, there was a comment about the CCCP on the jerseys at the Junior tournament which I am curious about. I found pictures of the olympic team and the u18 team, both soviet jerseys with CCCP removed, but someone believed that happened during the u20 as well which I can find no evidence of.18abruce (talk) 19:52, 22 December 2013 (UTC)

i was initially confusing both the WJC and the WC, now with the 3 sources on the WP talk...i'm legit confused. Seems the IIHF can't keep a consistent story. The Olympic team was the Unified Team so that makes sense it had alternate jerseys; what was the date range of the U18 tourney? --Львівське (говорити) 21:22, 22 December 2013 (UTC)

The under18 tournament was april 5-12 1992. The entry was Russia, however I have found a few hockey cards that picture the players there as having the same jersey as the unified team at the olympics (Soviet jersey with CCCP removed). The World Championship team was Russian, with a russian jersey, I have seen video to verify that. The under20 team is so confusing though, I watched the January 4th game against Canada, and cannot remember a thing about it. The upper deck set for the juniors has them all in regular soviet jerseys, but that dosen't prove it didn't change before the end. The other issue with calling the junior team CIS is that some of the players were not from countries that were ever part of the CIS (Sandis Ozolinsh and Segei Zholtok are latvian, Darius Kasparitis was Lithuanian but continued representing Russia afterward). There is an unreferenced comment on Ozolins's page that states that other nations protested their involvement, I don't know whether there is any truth to this at all.18abruce (talk) 00:18, 23 December 2013 (UTC)

Yeah, the naming is pretty loose (add Zhitnik to that list, Ukraine wasn't a CIS member either). Unless a Belarusian slipped in there, ironically, the "CIS" team is 1 CIS member (Russia) and several other players from non-CIS countries. --Львівське (говорити) 00:37, 23 December 2013 (UTC)

Lvivske Deletes Entire Edit Because of 1 Incorrect Cite

Lvivske: Why didn't you just delete the improper cite, rather than deleting the whole edit?! It was one in a cluster of cites; the paragraph didn't need that one cite, it had others.

I would hate to see you in a garden. You'd find a weed and bulldoze the whole place.

Added to your delusion of grandeur was your statement that this was my second improper cite [in 3 years of edits], and that you would bar me from making all future edits if it happened again!

Who are you? The new Mussolini? Svoboda's Gauleiter von Lemburg ?

The EU is looking for more nations like Greece that it can rob in order to pump up the wealth of Germany. One of the main organizers of the protests in Ukraine besides the CIA and OTPOR is Svoboda, a neo-nazi political party which has close relations with the Christian Democrats and Angela Merkel. They basically want Germany to take over and colonize Ukraine.

RSVP

As I've said, the entire piece was mess ridden with original research, unencyclopedic tone, and a lack of sources. It was an essay, a ranting, raving blog draft you posted in the middle of a good article. It had no place on Wiki so it was removed. The citation you're referencing was only 1 of the comments I've left, take note of the others and what other editors have said to you so far. There is a reason why every single one of your edits has been reverted on any article you've tried to touch. There seems to be a massive disconnect on how to conduct yourself with civility and what wikipedia is.

Yes. I'm the new Mussolini von Lemburg.--Львівське (говорити) 07:28, 27 December 2013 (UTC)

WikiProject Ice Hockey/League assessment

As an active member of the WikiProject Ice Hockey, you should be aware that there has been a discussion at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Ice Hockey/League assessment concerning how NHOCKEY will be interpreted. Dolovis (talk) 14:30, 2 January 2014 (UTC)

POV pushing at Svoboda (political party)

Lvivske, I see that in the article on Svoboda, the extreme-right party in Ukraine, you made two edits that ignored available sources and attempted to hide the historical relationship between Svoboda and the extreme right.

Specifically, your first edit removed sourced information on Svoboda's relationship with "Ukraine's Patriot," a paramilitary group, explaining in your edit summary that the two now have no association. You not only ignored the source in making this edit, but didn't provide another to back up your assertion.

Your second edit removed information on the use of the Wolfsangel rune by neo-nazi organizations in Europe, claiming in your edit summary that this information violated WP:SYN. You should read the WP:SYN rules, and the source you ignored in removing this content, which is an article about Svoboda, and makes the same point exactly. In fact, the language you removed was so similar to the original source, it could almost be called plagiarism.

This kind of editing on your part is harmful to the encyclopedia. If you have valuable content to add about Svoboda please do so, but don't remove important information from reliable sources that you don't want to appear while incorrectly invoking Wikipedia's policies. -Darouet (talk) 04:32, 3 January 2014 (UTC)

Your accusations of bad faith editing are in poor taste. --Львівське (говорити) 05:15, 3 January 2014 (UTC)

You can't engage in disruptive editing and complain, after, about accusations of bad faith. Thanks for correcting the article though. -Darouet (talk) 06:36, 3 January 2014 (UTC)

I'm sorry, I should have written "what could be easily construed as disruptive editing." I do appreciate that you added more information afterwards. -Darouet (talk) 06:50, 3 January 2014 (UTC)

• This person declared himself (on his user page) as a supporter of Svoboda. Therefore, he is not neutral editor.--96.241.218.72 (talk) 02:46, 18 January 2014 (UTC)

Conflict of interest only works if I'm in their employ, not if I'm a fan. That would be like every Canadian who wanted Obama to beat Romney ineligible from editing Democratic Party articles. (which if you didn't catch, would be insane) --Львівське (говорити) 03:26, 18 January 2014 (UTC)

Mistake in quote

Hi Львівське, I see that in this edit, you added a qualification that changes the quoted text from the reference you very helpfully contributed. The result is that the "quote" now contains text not in the book it is meant to cite. I hope you won't mind that I remove it: the quote section of a citation should contain an exact copy of some portion of the reference cited.

That said, I think it could be worthwhile to add more of the material from this source that you found into the article. If we decide to do that, maybe we could add a qualifier as you've suggested? In that case it'd be goo to provide a reference for the qualification. -Darouet (talk) 20:07, 7 January 2014 (UTC)

whoops, I thought that was a paraphrased section of the text so I just added the 'qualification' line from info that was also on that page. Didn't mean to alter a direct quote. --Львівське (говорити) 20:09, 7 January 2014 (UTC)

Because the text you added came from an earlier place on the page, perhaps you'd consider adding the same text by just expanding the quote at the top? If you don't have access to the full book I think I could find it at the library in the next few days. -Darouet (talk) 20:11, 7 January 2014 (UTC)

i posted the direct quote on the talk page so you know what I was taking from him. Not sure how to work it in now, will look the page over later if you don't get to it. --Львівське (говорити) 20:15, 7 January 2014 (UTC)

January 2014

Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to 2014 Hrushevskoho Street Riots 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:

• to prevent civil war – Klitschko], [[Interfax-Ukraine]] (19 January 2014)</ref>|group=nb}}) was sprayed with a fire extinguisher and shouted down as a traitor. Following this, Live TV

Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 19:33, 21 January 2014 (UTC)

 Done (but haven't had time for thorough copyedit) --Iryna Harpy (talk) 00:02, 22 January 2014 (UTC)

Death toll

Might help to coordinate together on this. How did you get 8-9 deaths from 5-6? I know KP and others are saying 4 shooting deaths now instead of the 2 we have on the page; what is the third? KP also says 5 total (not counting our november 1) so that would be 6-7 TOTAL. --Львівське (говорити) 20:46, 22 January 2014 (UTC)

Dont for get that Pavlo Mazurenko died from being beaten up on December 18. There were more bodies found in Boryspil Raion where police is taking people for interrogations. Those 5 people are only the one who perished on barricades on January 22. Aleksandr Grigoryev (talk) 20:54, 22 January 2014 (UTC)

yeah, that's what im saying - 5 reported (falling, armenian, belarusian + 2 more shooting + dead in the woods) + Mazurenko = 7...and the other from the woods that wasn't verified...that's 7-8, not 8-9, who is the guy i'm missing? --Львівське (говорити) 20:58, 22 January 2014 (UTC)

I am listing more information on the subject at Deaths section. Aleksandr Grigoryev (talk) 20:56, 22 January 2014 (UTC)

Also it is not including that random sick guy who died at Maidan on November 1. Aleksandr Grigoryev (talk) 21:02, 22 January 2014 (UTC)

i wouldnt include him either --Львівське (говорити) 21:03, 22 January 2014 (UTC)

How do you like the cynical diagnose of forensic examination over the body of Pavlo Mazurenko? That is what people at power in Ukraine think about others - bovine animals. Aleksandr Grigoryev (talk) 21:29, 22 January 2014 (UTC)

I'm not up on that info, what happened? Anything like Chornovol's "road accident"?--Львівське (говорити) 21:32, 22 January 2014 (UTC)

What it is now happening at Euromaidan carries certain elements of ethnic discrimination. Many Russophone population of Ukraine sincerely considers Ukrainophone people a bovine animals. A person from Lviv when he or she crosses east of Zbruch River may be easily be beaten up just because he speaks with a western dialect or even Ukrainian language. The ethnic discrimination in Ukraine is however not being addressed. That is one of the reasons the Svoboda party made their way to the Verkhovna Rada. That is why parliamentarians fight in the parliament. And there are many other evidences. People at power during the Soviet times were Russophone (exclusively) and now it is starting to be revived totally. Aleksandr Grigoryev (talk) 21:49, 22 January 2014 (UTC)

Please, do not take it as a type for rallying you up. Case with Mazurenko or Verbytsky is certainly minor. Yet those are cases that take place in real life and not being properly addressed. Aleksandr Grigoryev (talk) 21:52, 22 January 2014 (UTC)

In all of my studies I've never heard of any level of inter-ukraine ethnic discrimination based on dialect or regionalism. I've heard of some pigheaded persons calling western dialect demeaning things (basically, a hick accent) but nothing in the form of actual, inflammable cleavages. I think what you're citing is overblown IMO. --Львівське (говорити) 21:53, 22 January 2014 (UTC)

Case of Vradiyivka (raping) caries much deeper issues and is in away progenitor of the Euromaidan. Aleksandr Grigoryev (talk) 21:56, 22 January 2014 (UTC)

Follow what Oleh Tsariov has to say. He is one the biggest Ukrainophobes in the country and promoter of revival of Soviet times. Aleksandr Grigoryev (talk) 21:58, 22 January 2014 (UTC)

Yes, I've been reading his quotes. I don't think he's representative of much though. All talk and hot air from the neo-Soviet side. It's an aging bunch, at least. They're mostly in Crimea, too (with the neo-Cossacks and other radical Russian organizations like Russkiy Bloc and so on) --Львівське (говорити) 22:02, 22 January 2014 (UTC)

Soviet monuments in Ukraine partially carry symbols of the Russian dominance. And many people underestimate that. Therefore the fall of Lenin monument is such a big issue. The events of Euromaidan are 20 years late. Their occurrence was avoided by Leonid Kravchuk when he was the President of Ukraine 20 years ago, but Viktor Yanukovych seems does not really care - he has different prerogatives. Aleksandr Grigoryev (talk) 22:04, 22 January 2014 (UTC)

Here is clear and explicit evidence of those elements of ethnic discrimination. Berkut at Hrushevskoho "destroyed" flag of Ukraine ("Беркут" на Грушевського "знищив" прапор України). (video) Aleksandr Grigoryev (talk) 22:36, 22 January 2014 (UTC)

flag burning isnt racism. --Львівське (говорити) 22:40, 22 January 2014 (UTC)

I see how you think I imply that, however if I may mention I never said racism. I talk about "elements of ethnic discrimination". Do you find such behavior with state symbols and private property normal? Aleksandr Grigoryev (talk) 22:47, 22 January 2014 (UTC)

your wiki link linked to racism ;) - and no its not normal, but chauvanism of one pig (russian?) cop doesnt really imply major ethnic cleavages in the country. There will always be jerks in this world. --Львівське (говорити) 22:50, 22 January 2014 (UTC)

Your right, I did not follow the link. Assumptions, assumptions, assumptions... Your right about jerks. They are in any country. I live in the United States and here is no way a US police officer would allow himself or herself to act in such manner. They are being paid by the flag. Ukraine on the other hand is post colonial state, therefore perception of even service personnel could be quite inadequate. Aleksandr Grigoryev (talk) 00:23, 23 January 2014 (UTC)

infobox labels at Euromaidan article

I am still think that identification in participation of liberals and nationalists is very vague. Who are those people? The far-right radicals? Who are liberals? Liberalism in Ukraine is way too broad. Aleksandr Grigoryev (talk) 23:32, 22 January 2014 (UTC)

i agree with liberals but unaffiliated ukrainian nationalists seem to be a big part --Львівське (говорити) 00:00, 23 January 2014 (UTC)

I am just saying that is vague and could be interpreted in many ways. We could address it at the talk page to check for opinion of others. Aleksandr Grigoryev (talk) 00:13, 23 January 2014 (UTC)

sure --Львівське (говорити) 00:25, 23 January 2014 (UTC)

Reference Errors on 22 January

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

• On the Anti-protest laws in Ukraine page, your edit caused a broken reference name (help). (Fix | Ask for help)

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) 00:21, 23 January 2014 (UTC)

Growing number of foreign references to "Ukrainian Civil War"

I suppose you will need to include them in the articles sooner or later:

http://www.ibtimes.co.uk/kiev-protests-two-dead-ukraine-edges-towards-civil-war-1433288

http://worldnews.nbcnews.com/_news/2014/01/20/22367310-new-anti-protest-law-triggers-violent-clashes-in-ukraine-klitschko-warns-of-civil-war

http://guerrillamerica.com/2014/01/implications-of-cell-phones-in-ukrainian-near-civil-war/

So no need to revert my edits...

Peter558 (talk) 03:15, 23 January 2014 (UTC)

your content additions are misinterpretations of the source material. If one writer says a ukrainian civil war may happen, that doesnt mean the riots are suddenly a civil war. It hasn't happened yet. People have been talking 'civil war' since November. The third source is just a blog article and doesn't count, btw. I like that he's using my map ;) --Львівське (говорити) 03:17, 23 January 2014 (UTC)

RE: link spamming

First AGF if youw ant to have a discussion

Second it is not only al jazeera

third it is for cotnent to bve added to articles in case anyone feels like it. i dont really have the time nad patience anymore to add content and then have some wackjobs prefer to war to their version. So what I would add massively to pages I now generally leave notice for others to add.(Lihaas (talk) 14:51, 23 January 2014 (UTC)).

im assuming good faith but but im puzzled why they were being spammed in there like that, hence why i asked. It's not like you were providing info from the content, just mostly al jazeera links with dated content --Львівське (говорити) 15:26, 23 January 2014 (UTC)

Neutral side

There is a neutral side. It is not a simple stand off. Euromaidan medics are not against Berkut. There are photos where they help both sides. Aleksandr Grigoryev (talk) 21:54, 23 January 2014 (UTC)

I removed the medics - but they are for the protesters, so it made sense to include them as part of that party. Youve seen euromaidan medics helping berkut? Doesn't matter, removed it, journalists too, problem solved. It's all covered in the article and doesn't need to be in the CONFLICT infobox if they're not part of the conflict itself. --Львівське (говорити) 21:58, 23 January 2014 (UTC)

Sorry that I got in the way, but maybe Sasha will provide the photos of his version of medics?--Mishae (talk) 22:01, 23 January 2014 (UTC)

Yea, now it looks as journalists on side of protesters or against the government forces. Aleksandr Grigoryev (talk) 22:02, 23 January 2014 (UTC)

Well they are injured by the government, so they are in casualties, but not part of the participants. Make sense?--Львівське (говорити) 22:04, 23 January 2014 (UTC)

Sasha, (if I may call you that (since I am Russian too)) We shouldn't have who against who in the article, if you seek neutrality. All of you can call me Misha, by the way.--Mishae (talk) 22:10, 23 January 2014 (UTC)

Korchynsky

Korchynsky was not a wanted man initially. Only under a great public pressure Korchynsky was finally on December 14 (actually on December 5), two weeks later, was announced as wanted. The other nine random people were jailed in matter of couple of days. Korchynsky's involvement was one of the reasons that people witnessed selective justice. It is accurate. The article says that some parliamentarians are upset by actions of Prosecutor General office. Aleksandr Grigoryev (talk) 18:25, 24 January 2014 (UTC)

just seems OR/POVy that you wrote they selectively ignored him when a week later they wanted to arrest him. Cant leave out major info like that --Львівське (говорити) 18:29, 24 January 2014 (UTC)

Why would they jailed anybody before announcing the main plotter of the incident as a wanted man. What was the reason they did not do it right there and then? Why only after parliamentarian inquire led finally to announce it? How do you call that? Aleksandr Grigoryev (talk) 18:48, 24 January 2014 (UTC)

You are correct about POV. It does not say in the article. Yet, how does that look? Aleksandr Grigoryev (talk) 18:53, 24 January 2014 (UTC)

FC Dynamo ultras

Are you continue to claim involvement of Dynamo's ultras? Why are you trying to look for something that is not there? Aleksandr Grigoryev (talk) 00:04, 25 January 2014 (UTC)

• There is nothing said about Dynamo's ultras Yanukovych Is Playing With Fire. Aleksandr Grigoryev (talk) 00:09, 25 January 2014 (UTC)

You appear to be correct --Львівське (говорити) 00:12, 25 January 2014 (UTC)

Now, on January 24-25, 2014 it was confirmed that number of ultras from Shakhtar Donetsk, Chornomorets Odessa, Metalist Kharkiv and Dnipro Dnipropetrovsk did lead protests in their regional administration centers. Aleksandr Grigoryev (talk) 20:25, 25 January 2014 (UTC)

Big editing continues

Wanna see one of my other huge edits? diff Which was followed by my partial clean up. Слава Украине! (Glory to Ukraine!)--Mishae (talk) 18:40, 26 January 2014 (UTC)

You're a madman, I love ya (sorry for the bare refs, I'm more about speed than formatting. I'm processing a lot of information and don't want my tabs/ bookmarks to pile up to the point where I just close them and forget about the info) --Львівське (говорити) 18:42, 26 January 2014 (UTC)

Hey, did I issued a single concern about your formatting? No. So, its cool. You put the refs in I will do the rest (except for Facebook, YouTube and Tweeter refs), which I believe will be removed in the final article either way, since Wikipedia would prefer to use them as an external link. However, I might be wrong. All that I know that due to what Wikipedia is not policy social network sites are a no-no in the article. At least, one of the admins removed external link to Facebook and other social network sites in one of mine Armenian violinists. So, there is a possibility that just like with an external link, the admins can remove refs to such sites too, and that's why I skip them.--Mishae (talk) 20:11, 26 January 2014 (UTC)

I was citing Tweets from reliable journalists. Of course, they can be replaced later - usually when I use a tweet it's because it's very fresh and the journalists making the comments haven't written their articles yet. Youtube I *only* use from news networks who also haven't written articles yet, so I haven't had time to look it up - but want to get the info in the article and not leave it entirely unreferenced. I don't think I ever use facebook unless it's from a prominent figure as a primary source. --Львівське (говорити) 20:28, 26 January 2014 (UTC)

There was 2 instances when you (or Alex) did used Facebook as a reference, one of which was then cited (by someone), and the other remained bare. Considering what I heard on CNN, here in USA, today Euromaidan activity will be low, since the protestors have declared one day truce with the government.--Mishae (talk) 21:29, 26 January 2014 (UTC)

Reference Errors on 26 January

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

• On the 2014 Ukrainian Regional State Administration occupations page, your edit caused a broken reference name (help). (Fix | Ask for help)

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) 00:32, 27 January 2014 (UTC)

Re Removal of content

Don't know. I removed some sites that were dead in my first Euromaidan edit. But this... Hmm, maybe when there is an edit conflict I tend to put the old version, and sometimes when my keyboard gets tired it automatically begins to delete the next letter (if you know what I mean). So I need to save it as is. I'm sorry if my edits sometimes do more harm then good. :( You see, even human-machines like me do mistakes. By the way, if I do accidental removal of content, feel free to let me know and I will put it exactly where it was. I did that to @Nickst: edit, (I did mine then I realized that I removed his, came back, edit his back). P.S. Just fixed the bare urls of "Anti-midans", nothing got removed.--Mishae (talk) 00:36, 27 January 2014 (UTC)

Oh okay, I only ask because it happened to that exact sentence twice today and I was going insane thinking I forgot to slick save or imagined writing it lol --Львівське (говорити) 00:53, 27 January 2014 (UTC)

By the way, if its not hard, I can give you a tip here: The letter I does become capital by default, but after a specific punctuation it can remain not capitalized. If its not hard, please use shift key, that way it will make your talkpage edits more grammatical. The reason why I say is because I got let go on the Russian Wikipedia due to my constant errors there, so I hope my tip will be helpful. As a side note about imagining stuff: In Russia we say if you imagine something you need to pray (Когда кажеться креститься нужно). Another thing to mention, you don't need to worry about any paragraphs or sentences since Wikipedia is no a Final Draft, there fore by the time all of it will be written, somebody will go over it and put it where it belongs.--Mishae (talk) 01:10, 27 January 2014 (UTC)

Lviv

Hi, its me again. I realized that by your username you hail from Lviv and would like to know if you just didn't realized but English Wikipedia have Lviv related user templates. I hope that will cheer you up a bit. Viva Ukraina!--Mishae (talk) 01:22, 27 January 2014 (UTC)

thanks, ill see if i can modify it. I don't live in Lviv...long story short my entire family is from galicia and at the time i worked in a liquor store during school so i picked a ukrainian beer (Lvivske) seemed fitting! --Львівське (говорити) 05:35, 27 January 2014 (UTC)

Hmm, that's interesting, so you are by no means Ukrainian??? Then why you got interested in Euromaidan? Like, since you are Spanish I understand your concern toward Ukraine adopting a Euro currency (considering that both your country and Greeks failed to paid up the debts which resulted into a chaos of its own).--Mishae (talk) 16:51, 27 January 2014 (UTC)

Galicia...you know, Galicia...Halychnaya? We're from what is now Lviv oblast. --Львівське (говорити) 16:53, 27 January 2014 (UTC)

Ha-ha-ha! I'm sorry for my stupidity, I was thinking of Galicia, Spain.--Mishae (talk) 19:21, 27 January 2014 (UTC)

Eurozone crisis

Check it out, that's why I didn't edit Euromaidan article today: diff--Mishae (talk) 20:55, 27 January 2014 (UTC)

Medvedchuk and Russian factor

What? Here is an article in censor.net Relative of Putin, Medvedchuk threatens Maidan: Do you want war? I know how to fight. Also during the pro-European campaigns in Ukraine, Ukrainian Choice of Viktor Medvedchuk was propagandizing that due to the LGBT factor in Europe Ukraine should join the Customs Union. Aleksandr Grigoryev (talk) 20:13, 31 January 2014 (UTC)

so? --Львівське (говорити) 20:14, 31 January 2014 (UTC)

A scandalous Ukrainian journalist Oles Buzina, who is known for his discreditation of Taras Shevchenko, recently threw a benefice in Moscow to entertain the Russian TV watchers about situation in Ukraine. Buzina also known for his motto: One nation, two states (Nation - Russians, states - Russia and Ukraine). Along with Buzina the benefice was attended by Oleh Tsariov. I am just pointing out the existing Russian factor, while President of Russia has officially called Euromaidan pogroms. There are talks that like the 2008 War in Georgia, Ukraine may be attacked during the 2014 Winter Olympics. Aleksandr Grigoryev (talk) 20:21, 31 January 2014 (UTC)

Putin might want to protect his Russian co-patriots in Ukraine from the pogroms of anti-Semitic Ukrainians. Aleksandr Grigoryev (talk) 20:23, 31 January 2014 (UTC)

In Russian mass media Ukrainians and Euromaidan are portrayed as fascists and anti-Semites. Aleksandr Grigoryev (talk) 20:25, 31 January 2014 (UTC)

this all speculation though. we have a section for russian media in international reaction, we mention what medvedchuk did in the run up to the euromaidan. taking all the thing and putting them in a section called "russian factor" and coming up with theories is bad wiki policy.--Львівське (говорити) 20:27, 31 January 2014 (UTC)

Do not forget that recently Russia gave away $15 billion to Ukraine (fact), while Euromaidan puts that investment in risk. Aleksandr Grigoryev (talk) 20:30, 31 January 2014 (UTC)

again, this is ALL covered in the article within context. there's an entire article we made on the russian action plan treaty.--Львівське (говорити) 20:31, 31 January 2014 (UTC)

How do you call involvement of Don Cossacks in protest? Don Cossacks factor? Aleksandr Grigoryev (talk) 20:33, 31 January 2014 (UTC)

Reuters published an article on December 12, 2013 connecting Putin with Euromaidan. Aleksandr Grigoryev (talk) 20:36, 31 January 2014 (UTC)

I would just include them in the infobox and what they have done in either the timeline, or the anti-maidan section for those they have participated in (as i already have done so far for a few), or anywhere else they slot in - rather than making an entirely new section for them. For Putin, I suggest putting his reaction to the international reaction to euromaidan article, since Russian reaction and involvement is high. I think we can eventually get to a point where we could split off russian involvement into a new thing...maybe...--Львівське (говорити) 20:38, 31 January 2014 (UTC)

Also, let's not forget that it was Russian intervention and propaganda of the Customs Union by the Ukrainian Choice led to the government of Ukraine changing its strategic political direction and the mass protests in Kiev. It was the Ukrainian-born (Zaporizhia) adviser to the President of Russia assures Vladimir Putin that Euromaidan is schizophrenia (reference). Aleksandr Grigoryev (talk) 20:52, 31 January 2014 (UTC)

what's your point? you're making it sounds like i havent included most of this info in the article(s) myself, like i have no clue what's going on. --Львівське (говорити) 20:54, 31 January 2014 (UTC)

I am not saying that. I am implying about may be to outline it. That way it would stand out. Here is another article in Radion Svoboda]] (may be you saw it): "Kremlin again miscalculated in regards to Ukraine" - clearly depict the Russian factor. Aleksandr Grigoryev (talk) 22:41, 31 January 2014 (UTC)

Date format

Can we get consensus to use a 'Month, ##' date format? Saying "on 30 January" reads very awkwardly to me and I can't be the only one, and it looks entirely foreign to me.--Львівське (говорити) 20:36, 1 February 2014 (UTC)

Att:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Euromaidan#Time_of_when_it_began.2C_precisely_or_nearly_precisely --78.156.109.166 (talk) 20:14, 4 February 2014 (UTC)

Campaign on defamation of Euromaidan

I though you might be interested in the following article (Pro-Russian network behind the anti-Ukrainian defamation campaign). It does look like a conspiracy theory, yet, nonetheless, it worth of acknowledging. Aleksandr Grigoryev (talk) 22:55, 4 February 2014 (UTC)

You were wondering about me mentioning the Russian factor. There is a concept of Information warfare and propaganda. Aleksandr Grigoryev (talk) 22:57, 4 February 2014 (UTC)

thanks, have already read it and have it in my notes. --Львівське (говорити) 00:21, 5 February 2014 (UTC)

[1], [2], [3]. Some English-language articles about Russian media lies.--BoguSlav 07:06, 5 February 2014 (UTC)

Feel free to use this sources in International reactions to the Euromaidan#Russian media Slav. — Yulia Romero • Talk to me! 16:23, 5 February 2014 (UTC)

Misquoting sources: "Jewish and pro-Soviet groups"?

In Svoboda, I recently added a sentence paraphrasing a statement from The Economist. The exact wording of The Economist source was: "In Russian-speaking cities, such as Donetsk or Odessa, Stepan Bandera, the wartime nationalist leader who is Svoboda’s great hero, is widely viewed as a murderous Nazi collaborator." In this earlier version of our Svoboda article my paraphrase went: "According to The Economist, historical figure Stepan Bandera is considered a Ukranian hero by Svoboda members, but a Nazi collaborator by others."

In [this edit, you changed the text to read "The party has also been criticized by Jewish and pro-Soviet groups for their honoring historical figure Stepan Bandera, who is considered a Ukranian hero by Svoboda members and many Ukrainians, but a Nazi collaborator by others." As you can see, this change is not supported by the text of The Economist. You later [added another reference, found here, which has no mention of "Jewish and pro-Soviet groups" with respect to Bandera.

User:Lvivske, please do not alter text to misrepresent sources. This is not the first time you have done this at Svoboda (e.g. removing sourced information about association with paramilitary groups or removing information about the wolfsangel rune commonly used by neo-nazi groups). I've made a note about this on the Svoboda talk page as well. - Darouet (talk) 20:45, 5 February 2014 (UTC)

don't try to own the article, I took the economist's info and merged it with another source to give a more rounded explanation. Not every sentence needs to be qualified with who said what, that's what references are for. Your spurious accusations are getting tiring. --Львівське (говорити) 20:47, 5 February 2014 (UTC)

What's tiring is having to go through every one of your statements and sources because, on average, there is no relationship between them. That's really frustrating, especially since you edit Svoboda so prolifically. Imagine how frustrated you would be if you spent hours combing sources and making carefully sourced edits, only to have another editor change all of the content so that it no longer resembles the sources cited. That's essentially what you've done, repeatedly, at Svoboda. What am I supposed to do: spend another few hours going through your content and sources to make sure they match? Since I already did it the first time, it feels like a huge waste of time. And what's with all this "Jewish" stuff? It seems like you're trying to describe many criticisms of Svoboda as "Jewish" criticisms: Jewish politicians, Jewish journalists, Jewish organizations. You know, there are a lot of Ukranians, whatever their ethnicity, who criticize Svoboda, and a lot of people, internationally, who do too. -Darouet (talk) 02:45, 6 February 2014 (UTC)

Now you're just full of it - my refs even had the damn quotes from the source verbatim in the tags. If you doubt my sourcing so much, that's your own problem. I've not misrepresented any sources. On top of it all, you're blowing your top over ultimately a minor change to one sentence. To make matters worse, your original attribution in that sentence "Accoridng to the Economist..." was wrong because it was according to Umland. You're guilty of mistakes as well, take a look in the mirror and a deep breath. --Львівське (говорити) 02:58, 6 February 2014 (UTC)

side note: With regard to the "Jewish question", it's a matter of attribution. Same goes if it's a pro-Russian source or government media, it is helping in presenting potential libelous material as evenly as possible. If it's a Jewish affairs writer, or JPost, or a Jewish newspaper or Israeli politician, it's kind of a big point to clarify where the accusations are coming from, especially on a sub-topic of anti-semitism.--Львівське (говорити) 03:02, 6 February 2014 (UTC)

Львівське, first of all, I should apologize: not all of your referencing is sloppy, and some has been really positive. You've also corrected some of my mistakes (usually by removing my statements instead of making the necessary small fixes, but whatever). What I object to is serious mischaracterization of sources. For instance, I think we can both agree that Olzanski's piece on Svoboda, while nuanced, doesn't mince words about its racist/white supremacist history and internal tendency. However, your citations from it, including on talk pages, consistently seek to avoid that. What do you really think about what Olzanski is writing regarding racism in Svoboda?

As to this article from The Economist, the sentence is written as a statement from The Economist, and not from Umland, who's quoted immediately above. That said, you're probably right that The Economist makes the statement on the basis of Umland's article, which is just as critical of Bandera et al., if not more so: "In contrast, the proper evaluation of the actions and ideology of the so-called Bandera movement is Ukraine’s by far most contentious historical question. Many Galicians and some central Ukrainians – above all Svoboda’s followers – tend to see the OUN and its military wing, the UPA, in exclusively epic terms. Ukrainophone nationalists, resembling their colleagues in the Baltics, even heroize known Nazi collaborators among the OUN leadership, like Roman Shukhevych, a one-time Hauptsturmführer of the infamous Schutzmannschaften. In contrast, millions of eastern and southern Ukrainians regard the same persons as either alien to their historic traditions, or even as despicable traitors in the Soviet Union’s nations’ joint struggle against fascism. These divisions in Ukraine’s historical discourse are common places among those interested in Ukrainian politics – whether in- or outside Ukraine. The geographically divided memory of World War II has been confirmed in dozens of opinion polls and regional studies."

Lastly, whenever you present a source, you need to make an editorial decision regarding how you introduce the author. Is this author a journalist? An academic? A member of Svoboda? A spokesperson for the Yanukovych government? I agree that these credentials are important. But the editorial decision you make has unstated assumptions and implications: academics and scholars are viewed as more trustworthy (even if they are partisans, this is how people view them, because on average they should be more objective). Spokespeople for Svoboda or the Ukranian government will obviously have political agendas, and readers will recognize that.

It's legitimate to point out that a source or commenter is a representative of a Jewish organization and is speaking on their behalf: this is the reason, often, for their making a statement. In speaking, they are acknowledged representatives of a Jewish community, or of Jewish minority rights, etc.

But if a writer or speaker is an academic, historian or journalist who is commenting professionally, and happens to be Jewish, it's inappropriate to mention their ethnicity because the unstated assumption and implication is that their "Jewishness" inherently influences their credibility, and should be made known to a reader. That is wrong, both from a professional and editorial perspective, and from a moral perspective. If you believe that an author's being Jewish must be noted because it implies that their perspective may be suspect or even influenced and that this must be demonstrated to readers, your belief would be a racist one. I'm not saying that's what you believe, but I'm explaining what such a belief would mean if you had it. -Darouet (talk) 17:24, 6 February 2014 (UTC)

D, let me start by saying let's start fresh here - clean slate. Okay?

I'm not trying to mischaracterize anything, I think this is a case of you looking for one thing, and me looking for another. Personally, I'm trying to avoid copy/pasting everything he says. It's, as you say, nuanced, and a bit complex to just paraphrase everything and that's where we're running into our conflict. I think Olzanski is making a lot of good details, but I think there needs to be a divide between past and present, and if he talks about members tendency or the party's roots, and that translates into a catch all "svoboda is X" - that's what I'm trying to avoid; over simplifications.

That quote by Umland you provided is actually spot on. He is overly critical, or at least, one of the more critical academics. He has his POV and I think it would be best to flush out the superlatives, but in this particular passage he's spot on...so forgive me if I've forgotten what we were arguing about here lol

I understand your point about how I categorized Goldfarb. I think when I first read up on him I saw that he's writing Jewish history books, his website had a lot of content on Jews, and the first interview I read from him had him self identifying as a Jew and talking about related topics, so I just saw him as writing from that, possibly partisan, perspective. Moreover, if the criticisms are coming from largely academics on one hand, politicians on another, and jewish groups as a third...and he is a Jewish author who writes on Jewish matters...it just seemed logical to make clear where he was coming from. That said, you're right, I'm not arguing about this.

(and this is just an aside, but you'll find that the Jewish diaspora can be incredibly Ukrainophobic and this is why we see in the article that international Jewish writers and groups are extremely more critical of Svoboda; versus the 1 Jewish journalist and jewish groups who have a more moderate or positive view. This is a really complex topic and I could point you to an article I wrote on it some time, but what I'm saying is that it's just a very very very sticky zone we're in with Svoboda and Jewish-Ukrainian relations vis-a-vis the diasporas. It's a battleground, as is wikipedia in eastern european articles, and this is combustable material.)--Львівське (говорити) 04:40, 8 February 2014 (UTC)

Also not trying to ignore you! A bit busy with real life at the moment, and doing some deep reading on these subjects we're discussing when I can. Thanks for your thoughtful reply. -Darouet (talk) 02:59, 10 February 2014 (UTC)

no problem, content disputes are never settled in one night lol. Take your time.--Львівське (говорити) 06:08, 10 February 2014 (UTC)

Not all in Jewish diaspora are Ukrainophobic. Most anti-Ukrainian sentiments could be detected from the pro-Soviet, pro-Communist and Russophile individuals. One should point out those individuals. Ukrainian historian Yaroslav Hrytsak (known for the Outline of history of Ukraine) wrote an article "Again about Franko and Jews: post-conference notes" about the conference that took place in the Vienna University on October 24-25, 2013. The article was published by the internet-publisher Zaxid.net (October 31, 2013). One should be very careful make any judgement in regards to Ukrainian nationalism and anti-semitism without being personally related to any of those. It seems that users such as Darouet are trying to portray Ukrainian nationalistic parties as Nazi without having any knowledge neither about those parties nor their members. Aleksandr Grigoryev (talk) 18:00, 13 February 2014 (UTC)

Conversation Move

I moved our conversation "RSA stuff" to the 2014 Ukrainian Regional State Administration occupations [talk page] so that others might help provide the necessary sources. Stephen J Sharpe (talk) 19:38, 7 February 2014 (UTC)

A few things that might interest you

Have found a number of interesting things, and saw this, among others, that might interest you. It turns out that scholars who write on extremism in Ukraine don't ignore similar problems in other countries:

"This state of affairs stands in sharp contrast to that in the Russian Federation, with which Ukraine is increasingly compared on account of the two countries’ shared historical and cultural ties. There is no equivalent in the Ukrainian parliament to the aggressive anti-Westernism and nationalism that until recently was represented in the Russian parliament by Dmitrii Rogozin’s Rodina bloc and that continues to be represented there by Vladimir Zhirinovsky’s “liberal-democrats” and Gennadii Ziuganov’s national-communists. Russia’s political center has also obviously shifted to the right. A number of extravagant ideas about Russian and world politics—expressed only by politically marginal groups in the 1990s—are today commonplaces for the Russian political mainstream. This observation concerns primarily appraisals of the West (the United States and the North Atlantic Treaty Organization [NATO], in particular) and interpretations of political changes in the post-Soviet states—for instance, theories of secret conspiracies to explain the Orange Revolution in Ukraine and the Rose and Tulip revolutions in Georgia and Kyrgyzstan.

"The difference between Ukraine and Russia is perhaps most clearly visible in the numbers and degree of aggressiveness of neo-Nazi activists in these two post-Soviet states. According to Viacheslav Likhachev, a leading specialist in East Slavic right-wing extremism, the number of Nazi skinheads in Ukraine in 2008 did not exceed two thousand. In Russia, by contrast, the corresponding figure, estimated by Galina Kozhevnikova of the Sova Information-Analytical Center, ranged from twenty thousand to thirty-five thousand. According to other data, the number of Russian skinheads exceeded sixty thousand in 2006 and may have reached seventy thousand in 2008. Even taking into account that the population of Russia is over three times as large as that of Ukraine, there remains a substantial difference between the prevalence of skinheads in the two countries.

"There is a similar difference in numbers of acts of violence with a clear racist motivation. In Ukraine in 2008, for example, eighty-three such assaults were registered, of which four had a fatal outcome. These, of course, are high figures—unless they are compared with the corresponding indicators for Russia. Over the same period—that is, during 2008—the Moscow Sova Center registered 434 people wounded and 97 killed as a result of assaults by ultranationalists. A similar picture can be observed over a longer time period (Table 2). As early as the end of 2005, these tendencies prompted one investigator of Russian neo-Nazism to speak of an “undeclared war against the Other” in Russia."

From: Umland, Andreas and Anton Shekhovstsov (2013) “Ultraright Party Politics in Post-Soviet Ukraine and the Puzzle of the Electoral Marginalism of Ukraine Ultranationalists in 1994-2009.” Russian Politics and Law, vol.51 no.5 pp.33-58. -Darouet (talk) 21:40, 10 February 2014 (UTC)

Good read! Very interesting contrast of prevalence between the two. --Львівське (говорити) 22:11, 10 February 2014 (UTC)

• Since you're reading shekhovstov, his recent blog article may interest you here --Львівське (говорити) 21:42, 10 February 2014 (UTC)

Interesting. Just read this too. I believe that there's a good chance that the 26 June 2004 protest he describes - led by Kovalenko - may have been staged by Medvedchuk. And it's very possible, maybe likely, that similar things are happening today. One of the mechanisms by which the Yanukovych mobilizes his base is by using the specter of the fascist or anti-Russian electoral success. That doesn't mean that fascist currents, or anti-Russian currents (not always the same thing), don't exist. But it does mean they're given special emphasis in Russian media, or certain Ukrainian media.

While Shekhovtsov shows that fascist or racist politics are comparatively less of a problem in Ukraine compared to sister countries (including Russia), he doesn't deny their existence. For instance, in his chapter in the 2013 book "Right Wing Populism in Europe," he writes:

"The Ukrainian National Assembly (UNA), KUN and Svoboda are also Russophobic and antisemitic. Moreover, 'white racism’ is overtly or covertly inherent in the doctrines of the UNA, Svoboda and All-Ukrainian Party 'New Force' (Nova Syla), and most evidently manifests itself through the parties’ anti-immigrant positions." (pp.251-2, From Para-Militarism to Radical Right-Wing Populism: The Rise of the Ukrainian Far-Right Party Svoboda.)

I want to read more about the Euromaiden protests to get a better sense of the extent to which Svoboda and similar groups are either driving the protests, or only involved in specific aspects of the protests, or not very involved at all. -Darouet (talk) 02:39, 11 February 2014 (UTC)

as someone who has been on the whole Euromaidan thing since day one and written most of the wiki article and related articles, I guess I can say that they are very involved, and this is where the "hijacked by the radical right" motif comes into the press, but this is the moderate Svoboda we've been seeing the last few months, and not the radical anti-semtic one from when all of these journals were written. Now, I guess I should place an asterisk beside 'moderate' because while they're not calling for a lynch mob or spouting vile rhetoric, they are behind the occupation of governor's buildings and seem to be at the forefront of the clashes with police and toppling Lenin monuments. But they are taking part in the political process and playing their big-boy role in the tripartite opposition. That all being said, now we've got the Right Sector establishing itself as a far-right supergroup of Patriot and the other far-right paramilitary groups, who are actually saying they have nothing to do with Svoboda and that Svoboda is too soft...so there's that.

So yeah, Svoboda is driving the protests. I'd wager that those staying in the square over night, keeping the flame lit...they're mostly Svoboda supporters. Those occupying city hall? Entirely Svoboda supporters. 7am in the freezing cold, marching on parliament to hold a peaceful protest day in and out early on? 100% Svoboda banners. They've been the vanguard of the movement, for better or worse. I don't think things would be the same with Klitschko's inexperience and Yatseniuk's lack of direction.

Also,Taras Kuzio recently did a vlog and suggested that a new government has to include Svoboda, and moreover, that he thinks it would be a good idea to stick Tyahnybok in as the head of the SBU. That'd be interesting...--Львівське (говорити) 02:50, 11 February 2014 (UTC)

Languages of Ukraine

I think Languages of Ukraine should be overview article around spoken languages with links to specific topics more like Languages in India or Languages of Spain. Also I find the article too focused on state regulations and ethnology. Aljebr (talk) 11:05, 11 February 2014 (UTC)

i dont understand what you're asking --Львівське (говорити) 15:13, 11 February 2014 (UTC)

I don't ask. I so your comment in edit copy and paste from a translator? poor english, not sure what happened here and explain how I see that article. Aljebr (talk) 19:59, 11 February 2014 (UTC)

Svoboda (political party)

You recently reverted my edits on Svoboda (political party). The reason: "Neither their ideology or nationalism is a criticism or an evaluation...weird titles or mislabelled?" All the information on the ideology is pulled from the third-person sources therefore it is a critical evaluation of the party ideology rather its real ideology which is disclosed from the party political program. The political program of the party does not state from where it is being "emanated". Should the wikipedia take the same stance as someone under the name of Mridula Ghosh who is associated with the Friedrich Ebert Foundation and the Social Democratic Party of Germany. Aleksandr Grigoryev (talk) 17:30, 13 February 2014 (UTC)

I don't understand what you're saying. It's not a criticism, it's just saying they are nationalist and talks about their ideology. Ghosh is not taking a stance, just stating a fact about Stetsko - a fact that is also written on svoboda's primary source history account--Львівське (говорити) 17:38, 13 February 2014 (UTC)

Why is that source not mentioned as a reference? Aleksandr Grigoryev (talk) 18:03, 13 February 2014 (UTC)

In my opinion easier would be simply to translate the political program of the party as it is done in the Ukrainian wikipedia and let the reader make their own judgement on degree of the party's radicalism. Would not you agree? Aleksandr Grigoryev (talk) 18:05, 13 February 2014 (UTC)

it was referenced, but then another user (RJ) complained that it was an 'unreliable primary source' so I found a secondary source backing it up. --Львівське (говорити) 18:11, 13 February 2014 (UTC)

Comment. Those wikipedia "gurus" just do not make any sense. The ideology should be identified by the primary source otherwise it is an analytic evaluation of somebody else and therefore is a priori biased. Aleksandr Grigoryev (talk) 18:18, 13 February 2014 (UTC)

i agree. i checked the republican party wiki (since its obviously highly edited) and they cite republican convention quotes and stuff directly from the party. if it's good enough for the GOP, it's good enough for svoboda (of which there are considerably less resources to work with) --Львівське (говорити) 18:42, 13 February 2014 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free image File:Kaz logo.png

⚠

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

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. Stefan2 (talk) 16:08, 17 February 2014 (UTC)

3RR violation

It's also reported by Izvestiya [4]. It's no less reliable than your sources. Please self-revert, as you've violated 3RR now. If you fail to self-revert I will report you for 3 RR violation and you'll be blocked. I don't want to do this, because you're adding useful things into the article, too.Lokalkosmopolit (talk) 14:14, 19 February 2014 (UTC)

I'm on my phone but if you have a reliable source feel free to put back and won't count round

An apology

Sorry that yours and my edits on 2014 Ukrainian Regional State Administration occupations lead to Edit conflict. But I felt that the readability odf the article needed urgent fixing. It seems no information was lost. — Yulia Romero • Talk to me! 19:54, 19 February 2014 (UTC)

no problem, it happens! --Львівське (говорити) 19:57, 19 February 2014 (UTC)

re: blanking in Party of Regions

Separate criticism sections are always problematic. There is an essay (not official policy) that generally advises against separate criticism or "controversy" sections. It is especially important that if criticism is included, it must be based on reliable sources and it must not be undue. In my opinion, criticism of a political party by another, competing political party is usually not relevant for an encyclopedic article. Competing parties criticising each other is pretty much everyday business. It is only natural for them to criticise each other. Moreover: In this particular case, the criticism by Svoboda was only based on Svoboda's own website, and not reported or discussed by third-party sources. This would be the minimum requirement for inclusion in the article. Kind regards. --RJFF (talk) 21:20, 19 February 2014 (UTC)

Makes sense to me, I understand your position. What about the Svoboda article though, it's turned into a book of criticisms. Thoughts on how that is handled? --Львівське (говорити) 21:21, 19 February 2014 (UTC)

Reference Errors on 19 February

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

• On the 2014 Ukrainian Regional State Administration occupations page, your edit caused a broken reference name (help). (Fix | Ask for help)

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) 00:54, 20 February 2014 (UTC)

Citations

Hi, friend. Thank you for all your additions to the Ukraine events. When citing references, could you add information in addition to just the URL? As the notice at the top of the page states, bare URLs are subject to link rot, leaving future verification more difficult. Even better, using the {{cite web}} or {{cite news}} templates allows future editors to know exactly what field has what information. Thanks. --Jprg1966 ^(talk) 18:20, 20 February 2014 (UTC)

moving too fast to fill all that out, would rather do it later. link rot happens over time, this is all developing.--Львівське (говорити) 18:22, 20 February 2014 (UTC)

Formal mediation has been requested

The Mediation Committee has received a request for formal mediation of the dispute relating to "February 2014 Euromaidan riots". 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 February 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. 15:51, 21 February 2014 (UTC)

Your concern on my talkpage

First of all, I would like to apologize for any edit conflict that came from my archiving. Just like you, it drives me nuts too when I for example cite bare urls and archive them while someone inserts text (can be you, Alex, Yulia, Nickst, anonymous editors, etc). Now, I replied to your question on my talkpage. I however, need to inform you that edit conflict is a very common thing on articles which are updated regularly. I wish there would have been a better system on Wikipedia to inform other users when to edit and when not to. But, since all of us are scattered worldwide (you in Ukraine, I in USA, etc), its very though to control the rapid article expansion. Like, they have page protection from anonymous users but not from registered. Keep in mind, that just like you, I do my portion of help, and I am sorry if to you it looks vandalic and/or annoying. See, you and the rest are doing great job at updating the articles, and I salute you! Now, my job, is to archive, cite bare urls, insert dates, all the small things that your hands don't have time to do, even though you are not alone. I need to mention that only together, we can achieve a neutral and informative article! P.S. I brought back the deleted image and info from February 22 section, hopefully that will cheer you up a bit. --Mishae (talk) 19:01, 22 February 2014 (UTC)

Are you living in Manitoba by chance?--Mishae (talk) 20:56, 22 February 2014 (UTC)

nevermind, no, ontario lol --Львівське (говорити) 20:59, 22 February 2014 (UTC)

I live in Minnesota, not too far from Ontario I think. Say, do you know who made bare references again? I just translated the title from Ukrainian to English (I am talking of references 3 and 4). I might be bad in translating, since I need to jump from Ukrainian to Russian to English via Google Translate, can you see if my title translations are correct? I just reposted it to show you what happened. Thanks.--Mishae (talk) 21:09, 22 February 2014 (UTC)

By the way, feel free to visit my state. Its not warm, but beer is good.--Mishae (talk) 00:01, 23 February 2014 (UTC)

2014 Ukrainian Revolution

Thanks for renaming. I was wondering weather it be right or not to do it, since one anonymous user left a message in feedback section saying that riots is wrong, and suggested that Civil War will better suit the article. Fortunately you had a better idea. I too would have called it revolution! --Mishae (talk) 23:59, 22 February 2014 (UTC)

Unfortunately someone just reverted your title, saying that its dubious per WP:COMMONNAME, although I need to disagree with the reverter on that.--Mishae (talk) 00:06, 23 February 2014 (UTC)

The user who reverted it admittedly pro-Yanukovych so it figures he'd want to dismiss the revolution as just a riot. I think we just need to get consensus and move forward; I moved without consensus because talks stalled and someone needed to just act --Львівське (говорити) 00:08, 23 February 2014 (UTC)

Interesting. Does the reverter knows the difference between Revolution and riot? I suspect not.--Mishae (talk) 05:11, 23 February 2014 (UTC)

Not sure, possibly a language barrier? --Львівське (говорити) 05:18, 23 February 2014 (UTC)

New article?

I found this source which deals with post Revolution economy in Ukraine diff Where does it belong?--Mishae (talk) 05:09, 23 February 2014 (UTC)

Seems like it would be under the economic causes of the Euromaidan article IMO --Львівське (говорити) 05:11, 23 February 2014 (UTC)

Feel free to add it somewhere. I'm busy with Ukrainian politicians now. Less chances to get into the edit conflict.--Mishae (talk) 05:17, 23 February 2014 (UTC)

It's been a long 3 months, i'm burnt out. need a wiki break. doesn't help that i'm writing about this stuff off-wiki now. euromaidan overload. --Львівське (говорити) 05:21, 23 February 2014 (UTC)

What do you mean that you write about Euromaidan off wiki? Are you writing a book on Euromaidan??? Good luck if so. --Mishae (talk) 06:19, 23 February 2014 (UTC)

Question: I have just edited this article and in View history under my name you will find a user who removed a big portion of text and apparently is pushing POV. Can you be kind to check on that, as I am not sure if his edits are constructive or not.--Mishae (talk) 06:19, 23 February 2014 (UTC)

oh god no, just articles. I realized I was spending way too much time writing on here uncredited when I could be putting the researching and work behind actually at least something of my own. Also, don't have to deal with edit wars and trolls ;) --Львівське (говорити) 06:22, 23 February 2014 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

		The Original Barnstar
		I, Mishae hereby award you with this award because I believe that for Euromaidan articles you ought to be recognized!

Stay with us please!--Mishae (talk) 06:33, 23 February 2014 (UTC)

!

Turchynov DID NOT ACT AS PRIME MINISTER FROM 4 MARCH TILL 11 MARCH 2010! Because in that time Tymoshenko did act as prime minister. See, for example, document - this document was signed on 10 March 2010 by Timoshenko as a prime-minister. Why you revert my edit as "vandalism"?? Deleting incorrect information is not vandalism. Restoring incorrect information is much closer to vandalism. --Yuriy Kolodin (talk) 07:07, 23 February 2014 (UTC)

i verified beforehand that he was acting PM in this time frame; your reverts blank a lot of good edits he did in the interim as well, which is blanking/disruptive editing (possible vandalism if it was on purpose). You showing me a document as a primary source constitutes original research, I have no clue why her name is on there. He's acting, maybe he signs on her behalf? She was on leave. --Львівське (говорити) 07:10, 23 February 2014 (UTC)

No, it is impossible. Please see a lot of documents signed on 10 March 2010 by Timoshenko as prime minister: [5], [6], [7], [8], [9], [10], [11]. When documents signed by another person, for example acting prime minister in absense of prime minister, they signed by another person. See, for example these documents: [12], [13]. There is no original research - to use more reliable sources than mass media. The documents say that Timoshenko ACTED as prime minister on 10 March 2010, so Turchinov did not act as prime minister in that time because it is impossible to act as prime minister together with another person. --Yuriy Kolodin (talk) 07:20, 23 February 2014 (UTC)

Assessing primary sources on your own is the definition of original research. --Львівське (говорити) 07:35, 23 February 2014 (UTC)

Assessing? Not assessing - just reading the information from the very reliable sources. Much more reliable than mass media. But I do not want to continue this dispute. If in English Wikipedia it is impossible to correct this error, I do not want to waste the time anymore. --Yuriy Kolodin (talk) 07:50, 23 February 2014 (UTC)

Mass media checks facts. You're contending that your fact checking is better than Reuters and the New York Times based on document you found.--Львівське (говорити) 07:52, 23 February 2014 (UTC)

Hold on, from my understanding original research is when someone writes something without a single ref. Kolodin provides a ref, so its in no way an original research. I will suggest to ask for a second opinion here. From my view only diff #13 is authoritative (sorry for bad English) because it expands on the law. Problem is, is that it is not signed by Timoshenko but by Arbuzov. Plus, the laws are taken from Verkhovna Rada, an official site, that is identical to Ministry of Internal Affairs of Ukraine a site that I seen being used in some Euromaidan related articles. Now, I am not backing Kolodin, since his removal of verifiable text is construed as vandalism, but he is definitely not doing an original research.--Mishae (talk) 15:12, 23 February 2014 (UTC)

No, original research is when someone infers something from a reference that the reference doesn't explicitly state. Ironholds (talk) 19:07, 23 February 2014 (UTC)

Agree with Ironholds. In no references provided by Kolodin there is definitive and explicit indication whether or not Tymoshenko was acting prime minister. One should be aware that laws could be backdated. Unless there is no specific document on dismissal/resignation, there is no point of argument. Aleksandr Grigoryev (talk) 00:26, 21 March 2014 (UTC)

Re: edit warring

Then, you should request a move and everybody could discuss the problem. Arbitrary move is not useful, WP is not the place of political propaganda. --Norden1990 (talk) 17:25, 23 February 2014 (UTC)

A request that has not been closed yet. Moreover, that is not about title "Revolution". --Norden1990 (talk) 17:30, 23 February 2014 (UTC)

I moved the article to the original title. There is no political push for my part, I don't care that Ukrainian trouble (except the safe and status of Transcarpathian Hungarians). --Norden1990 (talk) 17:35, 23 February 2014 (UTC)

why did you rv my edit?

the text was not supported by any real source (the fake source had no link), so can you please provide evidence that bbc "reported" that right sector actually "includes human rights activists" so why did you rv my edit without some explanation 90.129.77.233 (talk) 18:05, 23 February 2014 (UTC)

you blanked cited information as "reverting vandalism" so i saw your edit itself as vandalism / disruptive editing. Your summary should have said "not in source" or something like what you're explaining here. --Львівське (говорити) 18:12, 23 February 2014 (UTC)

how was that "cited information"? adding fake sources to trick people is vandalism 90.129.77.233 (talk) 18:52, 23 February 2014 (UTC)

hello? 90.129.77.233 (talk) 19:48, 23 February 2014 (UTC)

Talkback - from N4

Hello, Lvivske. You have new messages at N4's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

http://stream.1tv.ru/live

I'm supposing you can understand Russian language broadcasts?

Do you want to see some news broadcasts over the period of Feb 19 to 23 on Euromaiden from the above stream?

I got angry with NBC trying to force me to reattach my cord with the cable company and so bought a proxy in Москва where the Olympic streams were 6 in count and had amazing bandwidth and up to 2 hour rewind so you could actually eat or use the restroom. The main stream had 10 hours of rewind and so for the total cultural experience I watched Russian TV commercials, the Russian late night host, some movies and, of course, their 5am, 6pm and 10pm news broadcasts. This is how I got all my info about Euromaiden during the Olympics because this might be my last Olympics and I was total immersion. Anyway... I recorded a bunch of their news reports about Ukraine and I was able to understand some of what they said from pictures and the occasional Russian word that semi-coincides with English. I could see them focus on the deaths of the police, they showed a sniper who was shooting at the police, how the protesters were starting the violence by tossing Molotovs, I heard 'terroisto' and 'extremista'... I could see the bias and chuckled. By Sunday night, after seeing them running movies about Russian troops fighting Nazis (one from 1945 copyright) it seemed obvious the Russian media is preparing their people for a Ukraine invasion. I'm not sure what, if any, use the broadcasts are as a source but the Russians do have vested interests and viewing the situation through their eyes is a very educational experience and useful for an overall viewpoint.

I'm not sure if YouTube will take these videos down if I put them up there but I can try.

Do you want me to keep recording news until my proxy runs out? Alatari (talk) 09:46, 25 February 2014 (UTC)

sorry but I don't understand Russian. Except for names and 'goal' in a hockey game :x --Львівське (говорити) 15:26, 25 February 2014 (UTC)

• If you're wondering about the Nazi rhetoric and why they do this, give this article a read. It's by Timothy D. Snyder, Yale historian and he's IMO one of the best eastern european historians there is so (to me) his word is golden. I think one way of looking at it is their Soviet vs. Nazis rhetoric and propaganda is much like how North Korea today still tells the people they are at war with America and drums up imagery from the past to rally behind, even if it's complete nonsense. Russia is, IMO, turning into Norther Korea. --Львівське (говорити) 15:31, 25 February 2014 (UTC)

If you watch their TV it's obvious they are not becoming North Korean. They have endless commercials for frosted flakes, ginko biloba supplements, weight loss pills, Avon, etc. They are heavily influenced by western corporations and have fast food restaurants everywhere. That was seen on the Daily Show interview with Jason Jones as he traveled Moscow and couldn't tell the difference from being in New York except the letters were all wrong. Dunkin' Donuts, KFC, etc. They've gone too far down the rabbit hole of commercialization to become North Korea. Alatari (talk) 10:34, 26 February 2014 (UTC)

well they're not dumb, western investment and product consumption is good for their stagnant economy. I was just talking about media control. --Львівське (говорити) 15:43, 26 February 2014 (UTC)

STOP WATCHING THE RACIST CHANNEL ONE RUSSIA!!! If you are not russist, you will not watch this racist channel that is filled anti-Ukrainian sentiments. Aleksandr Grigoryev (talk) 00:20, 21 March 2014 (UTC)

Svoboda party

Please stop editing the Svoboda party article. On your profile, you brag that you are part of the Ukrainian political movement. Furthermore, on your profile, you have a link banner to the Ukrainian Insurgent Army, which was a neo-nationalist guerilla warfare extremist group that slaughtered hundreds of thousands of Poles, Jews and other minorities taking advantage of the German occupation during WW2.

You are not and cannot be possibly objective. STOP EDITING UKRAINIAN POLITICAL articles.

Wikipedia is about sharing knowledge. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.25.212.194 (talk) 22:39, 25 February 2014 (UTC)

Impeachment of Victor Yanukovych versus removal from office

Приветь Львівське, Аre you now contending that VY is still in office? I thought I read in the last couple days you were clearly of the opinion he was gone from office. IMO the weight of SOURCES supports that proposition overwhelmingly. Rel your changing of the headings (what my inquiry here is about obviously), impeachment in general usage and by its legal definition at least in North America and I'm sure elsewhere means the process of having some sort of indictment brought against an official. Bill Clinton was impeached but stayed in office, for example. Richard Nixon was about to be impeached but resigned instead. I'd propose a clearer subheading. But hey, what you did is IMO preferable to those who seem to enjoy removing these headings and subheadings altogether. Best, Paavo273 (talk) 01:43, 26 February 2014 (UTC)

I just found 'impeachment' to be the best term to describe what happened - he was impeached and booted from office. I don't consider him president anymore, neither does most of the world, russia does - he was impeached regardless of that POV. What did you propose instead? Also, I removed demise and my edit summary was eluding to him not being dead. lol --Львівське (говорити) 01:46, 26 February 2014 (UTC)

One of the common use definitions of demise besides a human being dying is the leaving office by a (usually less than democratic) political leader. You will find that if you look in any common dictionary. I just found it in Websters and Oxford American. Impeachment is not wrong, just inadequate by itself IMO some other or additional word s/b used to indicate he ALSO left office. Termination, removal, end: Any of those and many others would work.

What I think is probably the most absurd of all, and there has been plenty of absurdity in this article, is the pretending that VY was a DEMOCRATIC leader--and thus since he hasn't resigned and certain constitutional guidelines haven't been met, he is therefore still president.

I'm not saying there is any perfectly democratic government, but even the highly corrupt system with severely limited choices of e.g., USA, IMO stands up well in comparison to Ukraine under VY. Any president who sends his thug cops out to intimidate voters to vote for his party has some seriously bogus democratic credentials. (I would like to find more sources and expand this whole thing of voter intimidation in this and other UA-related articles. I lived years ago in the Crimea and a family I was close to told me about these thugs that came around knocking on people's gates (High fences with locked gates are the only homeowner insurance for single-family dwellings in much (maybe all) of UA) telling people they'd better vote a certain way or else. I was like "WTF?" That was back in the Kuchma era.) Paavo273 (talk) 02:09, 26 February 2014 (UTC)

Impeachment isn't alone, beneath it is a detailed paragraph explaining what happened - as a section header, IMO it should be short and clear what the topic of the section is. As for demise, you are correct that it does mean a transfer of power, but this is a legal term, and usually when used in the sense of a 'fall from power' it's colorful language, like if the section was "Yanukovych's fall from grace". That's just how I interpreted it (but you are right, it is an English word) --Львівське (говорити) 02:16, 26 February 2014 (UTC)

The Society Barnstar

		The Society Barnstar
		I, Piotrus, on behalf of the Social Movement Taskforce of the WikiProject Sociology, award you The Society Barnstar for your work on the recent articles about social unrest on Ukraine. Thank you for helping to improve the world's understanding of those important events. Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 05:12, 26 February 2014 (UTC)

:D

Fuck you warning

wp:npa - fuck you is a vio of this policy - please be warned - Mosfetfaser (talk) 22:04, 26 February 2014 (UTC)

WP:DGF - "Even if bad faith is evident, do not act uncivilly yourself in return, attack others" takes two to tango--Львівське (говорити) 22:10, 26 February 2014 (UTC)

self revert

thank you for this edit - https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Viktor_Yanukovych&diff=597285384&oldid=597282390

that we can now move to more discussion Mosfetfaser (talk) 22:07, 26 February 2014 (UTC)

Haller's Blue Army proposed text

Hello, please review my text submission on the talk page… I re-wrote this section and others, to improve their grammatical structure (as many other paragraphs on that page were just poorly written). I think that its better statement; it mentiones not only Jews but also Ukrainians as targets of retributions, and has terms like "elements" instead of "individual soldiers", thus better capturing the reality that some of the violence was done by individual soldiers, but at the same time groups of them. --COD T 3 (talk) 01:43, 28 February 2014 (UTC)

Request for mediation rejected

The request for formal mediation concerning February 2014 Euromaidan riots, 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, Sunray (talk) 06:04, 2 March 2014 (UTC)
(Delivered by MediationBot, on behalf of the Mediation Committee.)

May be of interest

Hi. Thought this might be of interest to you. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 01:02, 3 March 2014 (UTC)

Warning of edit warring at Right Sector

USING TAGS FASCIST AND FAR RIGHT IS INAPPROPRIATE. Lvivske, in my view, because of the IRR restrictions of WP:ARBEE, these two edits at Right Sector constitute edit warring: ([14], [15]). I placed a talk page notice on the article, citing other examples in which summaries are provided for political parties, to which you didn't respond when reverting the second time.

Perhaps the admins will disagree with me, but I'm reporting it. It also concerns me that you are editing as an acknowledged ideological partisan of far-right groups in Ukraine, but don't even see participation in the talk page as required before launching into edit warring. -Darouet (talk) 05:30, 5 March 2014 (UTC)

USING TAGS FASCIST AND FAR RIGHT IS INAPPROPRIATE. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.43.232.125 (talk • contribs)

Please do not forget that you are on 1RR

Please remember that you are still on 1RR restriction (see Talk:Ukrainians/Archive_2#Sanctions). Please follow this restrictions even in complicated WP:BLP related issues, or you may be blocked. In the event that you consider your version is better please seek a third opinion rather than edit war. Alex Bakharev (talk) 08:21, 5 March 2014 (UTC)

I protest: Lvivske was not adding those tags, (it was me, if you look at my complaint, who wrote that "Right Sector has been described as having far-right, or neofascist views"), and my complaint was only regarding 1RR. -Darouet (talk) 08:38, 5 March 2014 (UTC)

Sorry, Darouet. The statement about tags was added by an IP user. My warning is not related to the editing of the article. If fact I think that the version of Lvivske better conforms with WP:BLP than yours. I just remind Lvivske that he is still on 2.5 years-old 1RR restriction. I have attributed the IP's contribution and put a section header to prevent confusion Alex Bakharev (talk) 12:03, 5 March 2014 (UTC)

I see. Thanks for warning the IP that was harassing me. As to Right Sector's ideological views, the movement is only a couple months old, which is why we only have journalistic, and not academic sources. -Darouet (talk) 17:20, 5 March 2014 (UTC)

all the more reason to be patient and not engage in a smear campaign. the media is sensationalist, everyone knows that. Obama has been described as a communist muslim, but that doesn't go into the lede of his article because of obvious BLP violations. Similarly, the word 'neocon' or even 'neo' doesn't appear on the George Bush jr. article either, and for good reason. --Львівське (говорити) 18:58, 5 March 2014 (UTC)

Ah, but Time magazine, Die Welt, or Le Monde Diplomatique never did, and never would publish an article calling Obama a communist muslim. -Darouet (talk) 10:06, 7 March 2014 (UTC)

If one made the assertion, it wouldn't make it to the first sentence of an encyclopedic article. It would be attributed. WP:ASSERT explains this.--Львівське (говорити) 15:20, 7 March 2014 (UTC)

Not that either of us probably has time for this, but would you be interested in some kind of dispute resolution? I really do think that we could come to a compromise that works for both of us if we had the help of an uninvolved and experienced editor who was willing to work with us. We'd both have to commit to it. I don't think that you're a fascist or something and I think it could work. -Darouet (talk) 16:35, 7 March 2014 (UTC)

Sure, I'd be cool with that. As with other issues, I have no problem with the content (quoting these newspapers), it's just how it's represented on the article and how prominent these quotes are made to be. To me, I see it as favoring one side over another (ie. NPOV) --Львівське (говорити) 16:42, 7 March 2014 (UTC)

Please assume good faith

Please remember to assume good faith. I explained my removal of the content and I do not appreciate you putting warning messages suggesting that I'm vandalizing wikipedia on my talk page. Thank you. LokiiT (talk) 01:17, 7 March 2014 (UTC)

Hello, why did you re-add the same warning to my talk page? Just wondering. LokiiT (talk) 04:17, 7 March 2014 (UTC)

you made 2 separate disruptive edits. The first edit, section blanking of well sourced material, can be construed as vandalism. --Львівське (говорити) 04:21, 7 March 2014 (UTC)

My edits were neither disruptive nor vandalism. There is absolutely no reason for you to place the same warning on my talk page after I had already removed it and asked you politely to refrain from posting such messages on my talk page. If you continue to harass me I will be forced to report you. LokiiT (talk) 04:24, 7 March 2014 (UTC)

If you continue to make disruptive edits, I will be forced to report you. Hence the two warnings to make you aware of the situation. --Львівське (говорити) 04:45, 7 March 2014 (UTC)

Need attention

Lvivske, could you, please, look at my discussion at the Talk:2014 Russian military intervention in Ukraine#User:Irondomes immediate reaction on reading this, 21 hours ago.. Aleksandr Grigoryev (talk) 02:22, 10 March 2014 (UTC)

Crimean Crisis

Lvivske: Could you please help me and support me with my proposed changes to 2014 Crimean crisis? I'm not very experienced in Wikipedia. I formulated some critical comments in the Talk section. It seems to me that many things in the article were written from pro-Yanukovych/pro-Putin positions and mislead readers. More objective facts should be presented. I'm sure many people around the world are reading this article now, and objectivity is very important. Буду дуже вдячний! Impatukr (talk) 09:01, 13 March 2014 (UTC)

Natively English source

I remember I've told to a handful of Ukrainian Wikipedians about that. I apology if you were one of them but I'm gonna repeat it once more: the definition of "natively English" source means the source written by any native English speaker from the United Kingdom, the United States, Australia or New Zealand who would not normally use "Kyiv" unless it is about the ethnolinguistic issue between Russia and Ukraine. Kyiv Post obviously fails this criteria for intentionally pushing "Kyiv" even though "Kiev" still prevails in English language. -- Sameboat - 同舟 (talk) 16:25, 13 March 2014 (UTC)

The Kyiv Post is a natively English source, most writers/editors are from the US. If you bothered to do a quick google search of News sources, you'd see that Reuters, BBC, Interfax, Toronto Star, New York Times, Washington Post, etc. all use Kharkiv in their style guides. These are, of course, major mainstream native english sources. --Львівське (говорити) 16:38, 13 March 2014 (UTC)

Sanctions applied

Per the Arbitration Committee's 2011 Eastern Europe sanctions motion, you are hereby sanctioned from editing the 2014 Crimean crisis article to re-add the {{systemic bias}} template, or to otherwise disrupt the article. If you re-add this template or further attempt to disrupt the article in pursuit of a pro-Ukrainian POV, you will be blocked from editing. (Note: These sanctions are valid per this edit summary warning.) — Coffee // have a cup // beans // 14:58, 14 March 2014 (UTC)

Are you kidding me? The article is a gongshow right now, I'm not trying to inject any POV, just remove the blatant bias in it. --Львівське (говорити) 15:40, 14 March 2014 (UTC)

UA Anthem discussion

I have posted a reply to your recent comment on Talk:State Anthem of Ukraine.--Rkononenko (talk) 17:45, 16 March 2014 (UTC)

Situation in the Ukraie

Hello,

I saw you are very active writing about Ukraine. I would like to share with you a article I wrote about the situation in the Ukraine: [16]

It's a new blog and I will publish more on the topic. Do you think you could write your opinion there and help spread it?

Thank you! 176.251.48.56 (talk) 18:24, 17 March 2014 (UTC)

Crimean referendum, 2014

Lvivske, please stop inserting the allegations of 123% turnout in Sevastopol. The correct value 89.5% is well sourced and the incorrect calculation is explained with sources in the Results section. Sanctions to you will be proposed if you do not stop. — Petr Matas 01:01, 19 March 2014 (UTC)

Dude, you're blanking cited info from reliable sources on the grounds that you found a thread on reddit. Get real. --Львівське (говорити) 01:06, 19 March 2014 (UTC)

Its not based on Reddit, see Talk:Crimean referendum, 2014#Voting irregularities reported in Ukrainian media. — Petr Matas 01:10, 19 March 2014 (UTC)

Let's figure this out on the talk page before making any edits to the article. Stephen J Sharpe (talk) 01:32, 19 March 2014 (UTC)

as it stood before my edit, there was no ref for that %, so i added a figure with refs. If there was a legitimate debunking, i havent seen anything other than the reddit link yet that's discussed on the talk. Not trying to be disruptive, just bold because it's an important figure that needs proper citation. --Львівське (говорити) 01:57, 19 March 2014 (UTC)

Understood. I proposed a solution on the talk page but I want your opinion on it before making the edit. Let's keep the conversation over there. Stephen J Sharpe (talk) 03:04, 19 March 2014 (UTC)

Restructuring Svoboda article

Lvivske, I'm trying to integrate the large criticism section into the article and could use your help. There's an ongoing conversation on the talk page. Stephen J Sharpe (talk) 04:05, 19 March 2014 (UTC)

Why Lvivske? Why? We're trying to reduce the criticism section - not add to it. Most of what you added could have easily been incorporated into the "Ideology" section. Remember how I requested "collaboration and discussion"? In the future, please refrain from dumping information into "criticism" when it can be incorporated into the article properly (especially when it's not even criticism.) Stephen J Sharpe (talk) 01:23, 22 March 2014 (UTC)

what i added wasnt criticism, but explanation. If you think its better suited for the ideology section then by all means.--Львівське (говорити) 14:16, 22 March 2014 (UTC)

I didn't come here to clean up after you, Lvivske. Some day, I'd like to add content to Svoboda, but as it is, I spend all my time cleaning up yours and Darouet's huge edits. In the future, please take greater efforts to properly incorporate your edits into the article. Stephen J Sharpe (talk) 06:51, 23 March 2014 (UTC)

My edits were properly incorporated into the article, if you have a content dispute, be direct. I'm not a mind reader and I'm not going to omit content that's good for the article simply because you want to arbitrarily 'reduce' and 'integrate' things. --Львівське (говорити) 07:13, 23 March 2014 (UTC)

Arbitrarily? I opened discussion. I cited policy. I explained my reasons. We established consensus. And then you, unilaterally, and without warning, decided to undermine the whole project because you couldn't be bother to properly incorporate your information dump into the article. Hell, even you've complained:

"What about the Svoboda article though, it's turned into a book of criticisms. Thoughts on how that is handled?" --Львівське (говорити) 21:21, 19 February 2014 (UTC)

Well, I had some thoughts and you responded to my request for "discussion and collaboration" by adding content without any discussion. And you wonder why the other editors have a difficult time dealing with you. The next time a new editor stumbles on Svoboda, try not to undermine and belittle his attempts to improve the article and he might in turn be sympathetic to your suggestions. Stephen J Sharpe (talk) 09:06, 23 March 2014 (UTC)

Wow, you're a nut. --Львівське (говорити) 14:52, 23 March 2014 (UTC)

Congratulations - you just annoyed the one person at Svoboda who was in any way sympathetic to you. Stephen J Sharpe (talk) 17:24, 23 March 2014 (UTC)

If you're going to come on my talk page and act rude, I don't know what you expect. --Львівське (говорити) 17:50, 23 March 2014 (UTC)

You're right. I should've expected this. I won't make the same mistake in the future. Stephen J Sharpe (talk) 20:12, 23 March 2014 (UTC)

Ukrainian Anthem

Lvivske, I can't comment on the merits of this edit in most ways, except that the English translation of the commentary on the anthem, in the version you're reverting to, isn't English. Specifically, the word "anthem" or "Ukrainian" anthem needs to be introduced by a definite article (if there is only one anthem) or an indefinite article (if there are multiple anthems). Obviously, "Ukrainian anthem is amazing" is incorrect and sounds comical in English. I know you're a native speaker but I thought I'd bring it to your attention, since you keep reverting back to the grammatically incorrect version of the commentary. -Darouet (talk) 00:44, 23 March 2014 (UTC)

I don't understand what you mean, what's grammatically incorrect? The source in the intro is in English. I'm a bit lost on what you're describing? --Львівське (говорити) 00:50, 23 March 2014 (UTC)

In line 46/48, for the edit I've linked here and above, you are changing "The Ukrainian anthem is amazing" to "Ukrainian anthem is amazing," and "It's a unique piece: the anthem of Ukraine, which…" to "It's a unique piece: anthem of Ukraine, which…" I figured you probably just didn't see it. -Darouet (talk) 01:44, 23 March 2014 (UTC)

I totally didnt, thanks for the heads up. --Львівське (говорити) 02:36, 23 March 2014 (UTC)

Щоб не було непорозумінь

Добрий день, я тут відкотив свою помилку, по дурості забувши, що цитати не правят, та я не авторитетне джерело у філології, тому звертаю вашу увагу, щоб не було плутанини через ламаного коментаря до правки. Ще раз перепрошую, що це провисіло аж чотири місяці, але краще визнати необдумане порушення правил, ніж зробити вигляд, що нічого не було. Mistery Spectre (talk) 10:02, 23 March 2014 (UTC)

...i only speak english --Львівське (говорити) 14:53, 23 March 2014 (UTC)

User:Lvivske breached sanctions

I have added the following to User talk:Alex Bakharev and User talk:Future Perfect at Sunrise.

Regarding these sanctions:

"Lvivske (talk · contribs)) . . . placed under an indefinite revert limitation on all Ukraine-related edits: not more than 1 revert per 48 hours per article, with the extra slowdown condition that before they make any content revert (obvious vandalism excepted as usual), they are required to first open a discussion on talk, provide an explanation of their intended revert and then wait 6 hours before actually making it to allow time for discussion. Fut.Perf. ☼ 21:30, 30 October 2011 (UTC)

User:Lvivske breached the bolded part with this revert on Svoboda without any discussion. The edit summary made reference to a recent effort to reduce the criticism section (see talk page) which had already been closed and integrated into the article and where, at any rate, I specifically asked that "No significant content should be removed from the article entirely without due discussion." I will note that during the effort to close the criticism section User:Lvivske made disruptive edits without any discussion here and here that greatly increased the criticism section despite my requests for "collaboration and discussion" on the article talk page and at User talk:Lvivske#Restructuring Svoboda article. Stephen J Sharpe (talk) 21:44, 23 March 2014 (UTC)

Oh my. --Львівське (говорити) 22:37, 23 March 2014 (UTC)

Stephen, thanks for dropping me the notice. I do not think Lvivske has breached his or her sanctions. The discussion regarding the necessity of the revert on Svoboda was already opened in the section Talk:Svoboda_(political_party)#Claim of Tyahnybok urging a purge of 400,000 Jews and Lvivske explicitly referred to the talk in his edit summary. Should he had opened a duplicate section after the revert just to satisfy his sanctions? It sounds very casuistic to me. It would certainly not help the talk page discussion. I do not think that any administrative actions require at this stage but I do urge Lvivske to comment all his reverts on talk page even if the edits are already discussed there.

The discussion was about the specific factual claim of a 'calling for a purge'. Lvivske decided on his own initiative, and without warning, to remove the entire passage of which no one had suggested. The statement referring to a purge had already been reverted by me and changed to a claim attributed to the source. Note: I original thought his edit summary referred to the discussion to close the Criticism section which my have caused some confusion. Stephen J Sharpe (talk) 00:00, 24 March 2014 (UTC)

The given examples as just the latest. Consider these two reverts here and here despite there being an ongoing conversation on the talk page. Also violates 1RR restriction. There's plenty more evidence from Lvivske's contribtution page that you can go through at your leisure. Clearly, Lvivske feels like he can ignore his sanctions without consequence. Stephen J Sharpe (talk) 23:54, 23 March 2014 (UTC)

Also this where he removes an 'unbalanced' tag on what is essentially a POV fork and marks the edit as minor despite there being clear concern about balance on the talk page which was made within 48 hours of this revert (this one was preceded by discussion). Stephen J Sharpe (talk) 00:31, 24 March 2014 (UTC)

Regarding the two supposedly disruptive edits. I have not followed Svoboda_(political_party) editing very closely but on the first sight Lvivske's edits look like introducing a new source that give some balance to criticism of a BLP subject. Thus, they look like helpful contributions to me. Can you elaborate why they are disruptive? Alex Bakharev (talk) 23:38, 23 March 2014 (UTC)

Please consider the (talk page conversation. We were in the process of integrating the criticism section into other sections. I don't understand how you can characterize it as 'giving some balance' when his content introduced POV forks like "defense by Svoboda" and, all together, changed the criticism section to be 2/3 counter-criticisms. Further his second edit included reverting a large amount of content and is therefore effectively a revert. Stephen J Sharpe (talk) 23:54, 23 March 2014 (UTC)

There was a section about comments by political scientists and I added a 1 sentence line of a comment by a political scientist. If you want o 'integrate' it into another part of the article, that's your prerogative. I don't need your permission to make a small edit. Also, the assertation that I made the criticism section unbalanced and "2/3 counter criticism" is imaginary, since I only reshuffled the existing content, not adding swaths of new. --Львівське (говорити) 00:01, 24 March 2014 (UTC)

Here. This link was included in my first post - why do keep ignoring it?Stephen J Sharpe (talk) 23:02, 23 March 2014 (UTC)

I see now that I confused text that he moved for text that he added. My mistake and I'm sorry about that. Other concerning reverts are detailed above still.Stephen J Sharpe (talk) 00:21, 24 March 2014 (UTC)

I see one sentence added and previous statements re-shuffled into a different sub organization. The diff in question is a (+341), which is about 2 tweets. --Львівське (говорити) 00:23, 24 March 2014 (UTC)

Agreed. No big deal. Please consider the other reverts. Stephen J Sharpe (talk) 00:27, 24 March 2014 (UTC)

Explanation of my belated thanks

In case you're wondering why I just thanked you for this largely successful edit (which you made 10 days ago), it's because I tried to make this rather similar edit 9 days earlier, but eventually had to give up in the face of determined opposition (mainly from an editor who has since got himself a 24 hour block for edit-warring elsewhere), and indeed I simply stopped working on the article altogether as a result and have only just returned to look at it today, so I'm glad to learn somebody eventually succeeded. With hindsight I guess it might have helped at the time if I'd said 'Crimean separatists' as you did, instead of 'Crimea', but at the time I would have expected 'separatists' to get removed as POV (as it seemingly has now been, at least at the moment, though I don't know or care by whom or when or why, since the main thing as far as I'm concerned is that the reader gets useful information regardless of labels). Incidentally your 'Crimean separatists' is seemingly correct, at least according to most (Western) international lawyers, though I'm afraid I don't know or care whether that carries any weight in 'Wikipedia law' :) Tlhslobus (talk) 02:33, 24 March 2014 (UTC)

Afterthought: For the now archived discussion, see here.Tlhslobus (talk) 02:43, 24 March 2014 (UTC)

I hadn't originally noticed that you actually took part in that discussion (your signature was in an alphabet that I can't read, and I had already given up by the time you got involved). Tlhslobus (talk) 02:48, 24 March 2014 (UTC)

I know all about the annoyance and wanting to give up editing on these articles, it's why I've mostly stayed off them for the time being. Once the paid PR editors who showed up out of the blue move on to something else I guess then it'll be possible to fix these articles...*sigh* --Львівське (говорити) 03:18, 24 March 2014 (UTC)

I expect all sides are doing it in one way or another, though I'd guess the Russians are probably clumsier at it because they don't have centuries of experience of manipulating opinion in a relatively open society. But at the end of the day there's not much point in fixing the articles afterwards, because they only move away when the articles are 'old news' and have thus lost 95% of their interest for the general public. Plus even then what they've left behind is then the 'consensus version' which can be very difficult to change if they choose to revert changes, because Wikipedia rules require consensus to change the consensus version...*sigh*. Anyway thanks again for that edit, and all the best. Tlhslobus (talk) 04:11, 24 March 2014 (UTC)

You make a very good point. I guess I'm just tired as you can see from the dispute discussions above...--Львівське (говорити) 05:07, 24 March 2014 (UTC)

You've got mail

Hello, Lvivske. 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 at any time by removing the {{You've got mail}} or {{ygm}} template.

Considering it's relative to your position that Yatsenyuk is not Jewish despite sources, why did you delete this?

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk%3ALvivske&action=historysubmit&diff=453528058&oldid=453450733

You've been warned repeatedly for edits relating to Judaism and ethnicity before. I don't think you really have a place to be editing regarding Yatsenyuk's ethnicity on wiki. Solntsa90 (talk) 19:55, 30 March 2014 (UTC)

Solntsa90 (talk) 19:55, 30 March 2014 (UTC)

"The fact that you are now edit-warring over your apparent belief that being Jewish & Ukrainian is not possible is pointy, incorrect, and contrary to the core policies of this site (source based, neutral point of view edits). You should be in no doubt User:Lvivske that further behaviour like this will be prevented by block if necessary."

The quote you provided was erroneous and overturned once reviewed by other admins/users, but you're in no place to wave some sort of "don't touch this topic" sanction on me. You're pushing libel, and it's a WP:BLP so I reserve the right to nuke libelous information. I've commented on the talk page a few times now. Good day sir. --Львівське (говорити) 20:00, 30 March 2014 (UTC)

I've noticed the precise same problem that Solntsa90 points to above. With you deleting RS-supported text (and the RSs) relating to Jewish ethnicity. Such as here.

Which current edit is at issue? And while I know that here, as with some of your other blocks, you were ultimately unblocked -- can you point us to where the above warning, from sysop User:Cailil, was "overturned once reviewed by other admins/users"? Thanks.Epeefleche (talk) 21:25, 30 March 2014 (UTC)

I was right about Kunis (her article reflects my argument) and I was right about Cammaleri (ditto). The Mila Kunis snafu was overturned here with the explanation "Cailil's DIGWUREN warning to Lvivske was handed out for the same "reasons" as the block. After much discussion, these "reasons" were found to be spurious at best. As a result, the block was summarily overturned." --Львівське (говорити) 21:40, 30 March 2014 (UTC)

Hold on a minute Lvivske. Lothar von Richthofen made the remark[17] you quote above (as anyone reading the link can see) and Lothar is not an admin - don't misrepresent what happened. You were unblocked by Future Perfect at Sunrise on his discretion. There was NO overturning & no rescinding of any warning. Future Perfect granted your unblock request "as per his comments" at this AE thread. This is not equivalent to declaring you innocent Lvivske. His post here[18] is quite clear. Future Perfect also followed that unblock in a matter of weeks with a WP:DIGWUREN sanction[19] limiting your reverts in relation to Ukrainians, which can be found logged at WP:DIGWUREN here[20].
So even IF my warning is ignored, the fact is Future Perfect sanctioned you on October 2011 - there has never been any question about that. And disregarding my actions Future Perfect's revert limitation on October 30th 2011 should have alerted you that there was a problem with your approach--Cailil ^talk 21:55, 30 March 2014 (UTC)

I thought Lothar was an admin as well. My mistake.--Львівське (говорити) 22:07, 30 March 2014 (UTC)

Given this history and the above clarification, I'm now especially concerned about Lvivske's deletions of RS-supported text (and the RSs) relating to Jewish ethnicity here. What is the best way to address: a) those deletions, which appear to be part of the problem that led to blocks before, and b) to address this course of editing? --Epeefleche (talk) 23:23, 30 March 2014 (UTC)

Epeefleche, I see that as recent as march 8 you were reverted again for continual BLP violations and POV pushing. I'm not the only one who disputed with you on that page, so why you have this vendetta against me for proving you wrong is just crazy.--Львівське (говорити) 23:34, 30 March 2014 (UTC)

Notice of Edit warring noticeboard discussion

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. Thank you. Stephen J Sharpe (talk) 00:26, 31 March 2014 (UTC)