User talk:Jo0doe

Welcome

Hello, Jo0doe, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are some pages that you might find helpful:

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

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or place {{helpme}} on your talk page and someone will show up shortly to answer your questions. Again, welcome! --Irpen 05:03, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:Arableland ukr.jpg

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

If you have uploaded other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on those pages too. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that any non-free media lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. NOTE: once you correct this, please remove the tag from the image's page. STBotI (talk) 07:47, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:Ukrrailwto.jpg

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

If you have uploaded other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on those pages too. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that any non-free media lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. NOTE: once you correct this, please remove the tag from the image's page. STBotI (talk) 15:26, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

Citing sources

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

Some of sources cited here [1] but all of them in Ukrainian or Russian, some of them ordered for print in quantity of 500- 1000 -3000 - 10000 pcs. Jo0doe (talk) 15:17, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

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

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

Fair use rationale for Image:1926censusmapping.jpg

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

If you have uploaded other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on those pages too. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that any non-free media lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. NOTE: once you correct this, please remove the tag from the image's page. Additionally, if you continue uploading bad images, you may be blocked from uploading. STBotI (talk) 08:30, 25 December 2007 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:1926-censkuban.jpg

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

If you have uploaded other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on those pages too. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that any non-free media lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. NOTE: once you correct this, please remove the tag from the image's page. STBotI (talk) 08:33, 25 December 2007 (UTC)

Your question

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

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

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

I sprosila krokha – chto takoe xorosho – chto takoe plokho

also see [2] bottom

and [3]

I assume that’s good

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

I assume it’s bad

• Demagogy as is - isn't?

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

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

English Dictionary Definition of ARMY

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

Army as in Continental Army Army as in Confederate Army

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

Disputed fair use rationale for Image:Ukrexpimp19281934.jpg

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

If it is determined that the image does not qualify under fair use, it will be deleted within a couple of days according to our criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the media copyright questions page. Thank you.BetacommandBot (talk) 02:37, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

Fixed. --Irpen 02:45, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

Please choose you words carefully

You have developed a habit of labeling various edits as "Vandalism"

You may be interested in the following section from Wikipedia:Vandalism

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

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

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

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

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

Orphaned non-free media (Image:Radgosp.jpg)

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

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that all non-free media not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. BJBot (talk) 07:00, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

FYI, I've fixed this so it is now listed as Public Domain in Ukraine. Nobody of Consequence (talk) 21:29, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

NPA

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

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

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

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

This is a good time for you to reconsider the style of your talk page entries. Otherwise, your editing career here may be greatly shortened. And I am not interested in your opinion about that (or any other) editor. So, please do not bother telling that. Some self-reflection is in order. --Irpen 08:00, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

• Thank you for info- I'll no more mention Y.Krochmalyuk 1973 and rest from most ever credible and more than angel editor.Jo0doe (talk) 16:22, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Orphaned non-free media (Image:Ukrratio.jpg)

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

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that all non-free media not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. BJBot (talk) 11:33, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

Please edit cooperatively

Jo0doe, Wikipedia is a cooperative work, not a personal blog. I have an immense respect for your knowledge but you have to find a way to work cooperatively with fellow wikipedians. Assumptions of bad faith, sterile edit warring, incivility is not the method to push your views into the article. In fact if your opponents were a little bit less noble they could easily arrange a permanent block for you just on the pattern of behavior. Please, if you feel that something is not right try to politely point out the problems on the talk page. If you feel the editors of an article are biased try to get neutral opinions via an article WP:RFC or other WP:DR.

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

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

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

Report

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

So you know!

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

Majority view

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

Hello

Hello,

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

Dispute concerning Ukrainian Insurgent Army

Thanks for your messages on my talk page. Please accept my apologies for the delay in replying.

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

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

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

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

I hope this is of some use. Please feel free to contact me, should you have any questions or comments. I have also added this comment at User talk:Faustian. Warofdreams talk 11:05, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

Thank you for clear and detailed explanation. But specifically Institute of History of the Ukrainian Academy of Sciences published historical conference materials "Ukraine in WWII dimention" mentioned what specifically noted person is "Kremlinologist" and his work is not histrical work but a new-kremlinology oneJo0doe (talk) 13:12, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

From the User page (I guess it belongs here)

What is your beef. Why do you continue to be so destructive in you edits? Bandurist (talk) 11:12, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

Please stop your disruptive editing. If your vandalism continues, you will be blocked from editing Wikipedia.

Thank you user:Alex_Bakharev for removing personal attack at my user page talkJo0doe (talk) 08:09, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:Sam_ukr.jpg

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

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

If you have uploaded other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on those pages too. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that any non-free media lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Do you want to opt out of receiving this notice? Melesse (talk) 23:25, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

Re:Sneaky vandalism

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

Why do you call everything sneaky vandalism ?Bandurist (talk) 01:42, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

Mainly I've use a blanking and OR per WP:SYN - See your "edits" of my comments - [4] - it's called sneaky vandalism Jo0doe (talk) 07:24, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

Soviet-Nazi co-operation

Interesting article on Soviet-Fascist co-operation here title Bandurist (talk) 10:59, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

Nothing new from Felstinskyy and US institution effort http://lib.ru/HISTORY/FELSHTINSKY/sssr_germany1939.txtJo0doe (talk) 13:57, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

While better to have look at source - Nazi-Soviet Relations, 1939--1941. Dokuments from the Archives of The German Foreign Office, Department of State, 1948.Jo0doe (talk) 14:00, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

Does this mean that soviets were actually Nazi collaborators? Wow! Horlo (talk) 08:53, 24 October 2008 (UTC) Indeed, initially they were, and then they went off in their own direction. 20:36, 25 October 2008 (UTC)

Use WP power Nazi_collaborators before make any conclusions. Thank you--Jo0doe (talk) 10:01, 24 October 2008 (UTC)

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

Talk:Massacres_of_Poles_in_Volhynia#Edit_war_warining

Please see my warning there.--_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 16:34, 25 October 2008 (UTC)

Re: Could you be so kind to advice a solution

Hi - thanks for your message.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Sources?

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

Sorry, I’m not knowledgeable about the EFront of WW2 in general – but in specific topic – partisan activities and anti-partisan actions by Nazi’s in 1941-44 and about EF at Ukraine (1941 and 1943-44) – but most valuable (on my sought) not in English – but German and on some extent at Russian (with some limitation) . Jo0doe (talk) 08:08, 30 October 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the link. I can use babelfish to get close, & if I run into too much trouble, I'll ask. The help is much appreciated. TREKphiler ^{hit me ♠} 11:47, 20 November 2008 (UTC)

Volhynia

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

Proper way to revert a split

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

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

If you persist with you methodology it may become necessary to escalate this issue to a dispute resolution. Bobanni (talk) 09:13, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

• * Could you conclude your sentence

Simply going back to the pre-split article given that there were many interim edits.

it has no sence

• I'm not revert - I fix hoaxes and update article with reliable information -per contributors consensus. Thank youJo0doe (talk) 09:24, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

Yes, you obviously aren't a revert. However, you have reverted the article 3 times within 24 hours, though admittedly they were 'semi-reverts' (you have changed your additions). --Miacek (talk) 09:28, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

No - I'm not reverted the article - I've improve it content -

see diff

• [5]
• [6]

See talk page for explanation - see WP rules - Wikipedia:NOHOAXES

WP reliability is a must - please do not exploit it as soap box. thank you

Jo0doe (talk) 09:32, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

November 2008

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on Holodomor. Note that the three-revert rule prohibits making more than three reversions on a single page within a 24 hour period. Additionally, users who perform a large number of reversions in content disputes may be blocked for edit warring, even if they do not technically violate the three-revert rule. If you continue, you may be blocked from editing. Please do not repeatedly revert edits, but use the talk page to work towards wording and content that gains a consensus among editors. If necessary, pursue dispute resolution. Miacek (talk) 09:22, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

• Please do not game with system - you can see my detailed explanation of my edits and consensus of contributors not to split article

[WP

NOHOAXES] (no Völkischer Beobachter pictures outside the Völkischer Beobachter article and rest "Zhukovs orders" Jo0doe (talk) 09:35, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

Dispute on various Ukraine-related articles

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

Note

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

If you do not understand what I am saying here, it boils down to this. From now on you are not permitted to edit any articles, talk pages, templates or categories that relate to Holodomor. If that's not clear enough then please ask someone else to translate for you. Moreschi (talk) 10:32, 27 November 2008 (UTC)

• I have now blocked you for a year. Clearly banning you from Holodomor only led to further disruption elsewhere. There is no reason why productive editors should have to put up with your persistent tendentious editing, soapboxing, and general WP:TALK violations. Please also consider that this is the English Wikipedia and contributors must maintain an acceptable level of that language. In other words, I recommend a language course during the next 12 months. Moreschi (talk) 21:55, 17 December 2008 (UTC)

The Law of Spikelets

The Law of Spikelets links text of the law (in Russian) and the Russian Wiki article with several links. Ukrainian source: [7] . I meant only USSR, not Russia.Xx236 (talk) 11:59, 3 December 2008 (UTC) I have answered you on Talk:Gleaning.Xx236 (talk) 08:00, 5 December 2008 (UTC)