User talk:DDima

Russia FAC

Hi, with regards to your concern on the FAC, I am going by the Millennium of Russia, which was erected in 1862 to celebrate the millennium of Rurik's arrival to Novgorod, an event traditionally taken as a starting point of Russian history. How would you propose that I modify what is currently in the infobox? The arrival of Rurik to Novgorod preceded Kievan Rus by a couple of decades, when his successor, Oleg, moved down and conquered Kiev and moved the capital of Rus from Novgorod the Great to Kiev and, in doing so, founded the state of Kievan Rus. If I put the starting point of Russian history as Kievan Rus in the infobox then I will also have to put the Grand Duchy of Moscow, Tsardom of Russia, Russian Empire, Soviet Union, Russian Federation.--Miyokan (talk) 04:13, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

Actually, I don't mind having them in there.. but I guess it would get kind of bulky.. Perhaps we could add a footnote (in the infobox itself) describing something like

¹ The arrival of Rurik to Novgorod the Great in 862 AD is considered as the traditional foundation of Russia by Russians.

Thanks for the quick responce. —dima/talk/ 04:34, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

I added a footnote.--Miyokan (talk) 05:31, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

As far as I know the name "Russia" was coined by Petro I. I don't think there was Tsardom of Russia, but rather Tsardom of Moscow. Another thing, I doubt that the first capital of Rus was Novhorod. Novhorod was always a Free Republic and stayed that way even while being a part of Rus. And the first capital of Rus has been Kyiv.Aleksandr Grigoryev (talk) 06:14, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

DYK article

On 1 January, 2008, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Mezhyhirskyi Monastery, which you created or substantially expanded. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

Keep up the good work. Gimmetrow 12:58, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

Ah, good to see that. No, nothing more at present other than the Romanian equivalent, but I will keep an eye out. One thing we could do is go through articles on Orthodox monasteries and, if we find reference to a "founder" or "donor" or something along those lines, and if appropriate of course, replace with ktitor. Biruitorul (talk) 02:11, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

З Новим Роком!

Riurik wishes you a Happy 2008!

--Riurik^(discuss) 21:54, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

Also wanna wish you the best year ever! Thank you for your wishing. Aleksandr Grigoryev (talk) 05:51, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

Thanks. —dima/talk/ 18:57, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

Chicago "landbrother"

Hey, Dima, where are you in Chicago? I used to live in Skokie for over three years before moving to East Coast. Chicago is my first city here in America -- second Motherland:) Aleksandr Grigoryev (talk) 06:22, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

I live in Northwest Indiana, in a small town of Munster. —dima/talk/ 18:57, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

Happy New year from DYK

		The 25 DYK Medal
		Congratulations! Here's a medal for you in appreciation of your hardwork in creating, expanding and nominating 25+ articles for DYK. Its a bit belated as you have over 30ish ... it seems a long time since you started and so many articles. Keep up the good work, DDima, the Ukraine is represented! --Victuallers (talk) 21:21, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

Thanks a lot Victuallers! —dima/talk/ 21:25, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

Image:Map of Dnipropetrovsk Metro ukr.png

There are a lot of mistakes on this image.--Ahonc (Talk) 17:04, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

Mezhyhirskyi Monastery GAR

I've left comments for a Good Article Review on the talk page.

From looking at your userpage, I see you have lots more experience at this than I do, but I hope the comments help. I'll formally put it on hold. Let me know what you do to the article. Smallbones (talk) 00:03, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for reviewing it. I will start fixing it up soon (probably today) —dima/talk/ 00:04, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

Passed, congrats, Do please look for some English-language reference. Smallbones (talk) 21:48, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

Congratulations! Bogdan ^що? 22:34, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

Thanks a lot! Hopefully, you'll have the same luck with Ukraine.. nice job on it! —dima/talk/ 22:35, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

Поздравление

Удачного Вам года! :) Russianname

Спасибо! —dima/talk/ 17:09, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

adminship

Hello. I've seen your edits of late and think you would make a good administrator. It looks like someone above had the same idea, so I was wondering if you thought you were ready now (since you said you weren't a month ago). Wizardman 20:35, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

Thanks. I've been offered nominations before, but they never really formulated into real RfAs. One thing that worries me is my not so consistent contributions to the Wikipedia namespace, but I've been more active in them recently. Thanks for considering me, I'll accept. —dima/talk/ 01:08, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

Sounds good. I'll make the nomination, and if you wish to ask any of your previous requests to co-nom, that'd be fine at that time. Your wikispace number doesn't seem to be a problem, I've had candidates pass in similar situations before no problem. Since I ahve some time to space I should be able to get it ready shortly. Wizardman 01:12, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

just answer the questions, and transclude when you're ready. Good luck. Wizardman 01:28, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

Ok, thanks. Sorry for the delay, I am pretty busy with off-wiki stuff (school), but I'll probably answer and transclude it later on today.. —dima/talk/ 22:01, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

I went and reset the time, as well as put it on the main rfa page. Wizardman 23:48, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for saving me the trouble. I was just busy with school (finals) so I couldn't have spent a lot of time on here, —dima/talk/ 23:51, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

Banská Bystrica

Thank you for beginning the GA review process of Banská Bystrica. I feel we have now addressed all (or most of) your concerns. Please let me know if you find anything else that should be improved. Thank you again for all your great suggestions! Tankred (talk) 14:08, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

Города Украины

Здравствуйте! Хотел Вам объяснить, что я вполне обоснованно удалял русские названия из статей о городах Украины (Киеве, Харькове и др), т.к. Украина в настоящий момент - независимое государство, и единственный официальный (государственный) язык там - украинский.--Reino Helismaa (talk) 11:17, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

Hi. I understand that Ukrainian is the only state language in Ukraine.. but that is not a reason as to why we should remove other names from the introduction. It (Russian) is widely spoken in Kharkiv and Kiev, just like we have the Template:Lang-pl in the introduction of Lviv. They can be in there regardless of being official or not.. Please don't revert it, otherwise discuss it at the talk. —dima/talk/ 16:48, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

re:It (Russian) is widely spoken in Kharkiv and Kiev///

В Харькове - да, но не в Киеве. В Киеве все говорят по-украински.--Reino Helismaa (talk) 20:14, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

Не факт. И по-русски тоже говорят.--Ahonc (Talk) 20:49, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

Userpage

You forgot <references/> on your userpage :)--Ahonc (Talk) 20:49, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

I think I have it.. I use {{reflist}}.. —dima/talk/ 03:21, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

Huggle.

Hehe, I almost hit "Q"... :P · AndonicO ^Hail! 00:11, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

thx

I have the mop but can you search the RFA meeting shown to find the bucket?	<font=3> Thanks for your support, my request for adminship passed 60/0/0 yesterday! I want to thank Mrs.EasterBunny and Royalbroil for nominating me, those who updated the RfA tally, and everyone for their support and many kind words. To paraphrase a president ... I wish my mum and dad could see the comments made. My dad would be so proud to see the comments ... and my mum would have believed them". I will do my best to use the new tools carefully and responsibly (and you may be surprised to find that I have not deleted all of the pages by accident..... yet). Thanks again, Victuallers (talk) 20:51, 22 January 2008 (UTC)	An early RFA meeting to decide if Victuallers can be included as a sysop - use cursor to identify.

Your are now an administrator

Congratulations, I have just closed your RfA as successful and made you an administrator. Take a look at the administrators' how-to guide and the administrators' reading list if you haven't read those already. Also, the practice exercises at the new admin school may be useful. If you have any questions, get in touch on my talk page. WjBscribe 01:31, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

Let me be the first to offer congratulations! As another newly minted admin, welcome! -- Alexf⁴² 01:34, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

Thanks Alex! —dima/talk/ 01:35, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

Enjoy! :-) Bogdan ^що? 01:36, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

Thanks :) —dima/talk/ 01:45, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

Congradulations! Ceriy (talk) 01:53, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

Salute!

Dima, Congradulations! You deserve to be an admin. Greggerr (talk) 02:32, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

I agree. You do very good work. Ostap 04:17, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

Thanks a lot guys! —dima/talk/ 04:37, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

Congrats! Oysterguitarist 04:53, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

Congratulations and good luck. :) --Boguslav (talk) 20:20, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

Thanks! —dima/talk/ 20:43, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

Congratulations! Jauerback^dude?/_dude. 20:41, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

Thanks and congrats to you too! —dima/talk/ 20:43, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

About your RfA

The admins' T-shirt. Acalamari 02:36, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

Congratulations on your successful request for adminship. I am glad you passed, and you are welcome for the support. For information on using your new tools, see the school for new admins; you will find it very useful. Good luck! Acalamari 02:36, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

Thanks. I've read and looked through the new admin school page.. You're right, its pretty helpful. Cheers, —dima/talk/ 04:37, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

Removing backlinks

Please do not remove links like [1]; there will eventually be an article about SR 34. Thank you. --NE2 07:15, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

I see.. I was wondering about what to do with that.. Thanks for informing me, —dima/talk/ 18:21, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

RfA thankyou template

Check out how your template displayed for Wizardman.  ;) --TT 12:08, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

I guess I should have checked that out before posting it :)) —dima/talk/ 18:27, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

Congratulations!

Congrats! and good job on your RFA. Spencer^T♦C 14:42, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

Thanks Spencer! —dima/talk/ 20:43, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

Thanks

I created the category:Blender users you just deleted. I actually wanted it to be deleted because it was redundant, but I only discovered Category:Wikipedians who use Blender after the fact.

So, thanks for helping me. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Bedelato (talk • contribs) 19:40, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

You're welcome. It wasn't any problem at all for me to delete it. —dima/talk/

For your valuable work

File:Interlingual Barnstar.png		The Geography Barnstar
		Let me use an opportunity of Ukraine being recognized today as a good article to award you this barnstar for your excellent work on the whole variety of Ukrainian geographic articles. Greggerr (talk) 00:51, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

I join, and congrats on the adminship.--Riurik^(discuss) 01:20, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

Thanks Riurik! —dima/talk/ 01:24, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

Congratulations!

Congratulations on your successful adminship bid, glad I was able to help. Jayjg ^(talk) 21:41, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

Присоединяюсь к поздравлениям.--Ahonc (Talk) 22:49, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

Thanks guys. —dima/talk/ 01:24, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

Ukrainian parliamentary election, 2007

Someone who didn't register on wikipedia has made changes too the Ukrainian parliamentary election, 2007 wikipedia article. I already made some changes to his/her changes but can't really judge if his/her other changes are based on facts! I can't read Ukrainian yet, But I'm learning! Can you please take a look at it? I trust you and him/her I don't trust! He/she could be a "blue one" out on revange :) ДУЖЕ ДЯКУЮ! Mariah-Yulia (talk) 23:22, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

I reverted his edits. Another administrator blocked the anonymous editor today because he was a sockpuppet of blocked user UkraineToday. Cheers, —dima/talk/ 23:36, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

Thanks. Together we are many! We cannot be defeated! —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mariah-Yulia (talk • contribs) 00:50, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

You're welcome :) —dima/talk/ 01:24, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

Кстати, по поводу Ukrainian parliamentary election: читал commons:Image talk:Ukrainian parliamentary election, 2007 (second place results).PNG?--Ahonc (Talk) 13:41, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

"WP:WAR" redirects here. For similar topics, see WP:NOTBATTLE, Wikipedia:Wikipedia is not about winning, Wikipedia:Page-move war, Wikipedia:Wheel war, and Wikipedia:Genre warrior.

For the technical problem when multiple editors try to edit the same page at once, see Help:Edit conflict. For reporting editors who are edit warring, see Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring.

Wikipedia page history showing a severe edit war

Edit warring doesn't help when attempting to resolve disputes. In fact, engaging in such behavior will usually inflame the dispute, poisoning the environment that all Wikipedia editors share.

An edit war occurs when editors who disagree about the content of a page repeatedly override each other's contributions. Editors engaged in a dispute should reach consensus or pursue dispute resolution rather than edit war. Edit warring is unconstructive, creates animosity between editors, makes consensus harder to reach, and causes confusion for readers. Users who engage in edit warring risk being blocked or even banned. An editor who repeatedly restores their preferred version is edit warring, regardless of whether those edits are justifiable. Claiming "My edits were right, so it wasn't edit warring" is not a valid defense.

There is a bright line known as the three-revert rule (3RR). To revert is to undo the action of another editor. The three-revert rule states that an editor must not perform more than three reverts, in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material, on a single page within a 24-hour period. Any appearance of gaming the system by reverting a fourth time just outside of the 24-hour slot will usually be considered edit warring. There are certain exemptions to the three-revert rule, such as reverting vandalism or clear violations of the policy on biographies of living persons; see below for details. The three-revert rule is a convenient limit for occasions when an edit war is happening fairly quickly; it is not a definition of "edit warring", and it is absolutely possible to engage in edit warring without breaking the three-revert rule, or even coming close to doing so.

What edit warring is

See also: Wikipedia:Editing policy

Wikipedia encourages editors to be bold, but while a potentially controversial change may be made to find out whether it is opposed, another editor may revert it. This may be the beginning of a bold, revert, discuss (BRD) cycle. An edit war only arises if the situation develops into a series of back-and-forth reverts. Nevertheless, not every revert or controversial edit is regarded as edit warring:

• Reverting vandalism is not edit warring. However, edits from a slanted point of view, general insertion or removal of material, or other good-faith changes are not considered vandalism. See Wikipedia:Vandalism § Types of vandalism and Wikipedia:Vandalism § What is not vandalism.
• Reverting to enforce certain overriding policies is not considered edit warring. For example, under the policy on biographies of living persons, where negative unsourced content is being introduced, the risk of harm is such that removal is required.
• Reverting edits of banned or blocked users is not edit warring.
• Reverting edits in one's own user page is rarely edit warring. Traditionally, Wikipedia offers wide latitude to users to manage their user space as they see fit. For more information, see Wikipedia:User pages § Ownership and editing of user pages.

When reverting, be sure to indicate your reasons. This can be done in the edit summary and/or talk page. Anti-vandalism tools such as Twinkle, Huggle and rollback should not be used to undo good-faith changes in content disputes without an appropriate edit summary.

The three-revert rule

Editors who engage in edit warring are liable to be blocked from editing to prevent further disruption to the affected page. While any amount of edit warring may lead to sanctions, there is a bright-line rule called the three-revert rule (3RR), the violation of which will usually be considered edit warring, and often leads to the user engaging in the behavior to be blocked.

The three-revert rule states:

An editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page—whether involving the same or different material—within a 24-hour period. An edit or a series of consecutive edits that undoes or manually reverses other editors' actions—whether in whole or in part—counts as a revert. Violations of this rule often attract blocks of at least 24 hours. Fourth reverts just outside the 24-hour period will usually also be considered edit-warring, especially if repeated or combined with other edit-warring behavior. See below for exemptions.

The term "page" in the three-revert rule above is defined as any page on Wikipedia, including those in talk and project spaces. The term "revert" is defined as any edit (or administrative action) that reverses or undoes the actions of other editors, in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material, and whether performed using undo, rollback, or done so completely manually. A series of consecutively saved reverting edits by one user, with no intervening edits by another user, counts as one revert.

The three-revert rule applies per person, not per account; reverts made by multiple accounts operated by one editor count together. Editors violating 3RR will usually be blocked for 24 hours for a first incident. Even without a 3RR violation, an administrator may still act if they believe a user's behavior constitutes edit warring, and any user may report edit warring with or without 3RR being breached. The rule is not an entitlement to revert a page a specific number of times.

If an editor violates 3RR by mistake, they should reverse their own most recent reversion. Administrators may take this into account and decide not to block in such cases—for example, if the user is not a habitual edit warrior and is genuinely trying to rectify their own mistake.

Edit warring and 3RR violations are not detected automatically. Either wait for an administrator to take action, or take any of the steps suggested in the § What to do if you see edit-warring behavior section below.

Exemptions

The following reverts are exempt from the edit-warring policy:

1. Reverting your own actions ("self-reverting").
2. Reverting edits to pages in your own user space, as long as you are respecting the user page guidelines.
3. Reverting actions performed by banned users in violation of a ban, and sockpuppets or meatpuppets of banned or blocked users.
4. Reverting obvious vandalism—edits that any well-intentioned user would agree constitute vandalism, such as page blanking and adding offensive language.
5. Removal of clear copyright violations or content that unquestionably violates the non-free content policy (NFCC). What counts as exempt under NFCC can be controversial, and should be established as a violation first. Consider opening a deletion discussion at Wikipedia:Files for discussion instead of relying on this exemption.
6. Removal of content that is clearly illegal under U.S. law, such as child pornography and links to pirated software.
7. Removing contentious material that is libelous, biased, unsourced, or poorly sourced according to Wikipedia's biographies of living persons (BLP) policy. What counts as exempt under BLP can be controversial. Consider reporting to the BLP noticeboard instead of relying on this exemption.
8. Reverting unambiguous spam, where the content would be eligible for page deletion under criterion G11 if it were a standalone page.

Considerable leeway is also given to editors reverting to maintain the quality of a featured article while it appears on the Main Page.

If you are claiming an exemption, make sure there is a clearly visible edit summary or separate section of the talk page that explains the exemption. When in doubt, do not revert. Instead, follow the guidance below in § Handling of edit-warring behaviors.

Other revert rules

"WP:0RR" and "WP:1RR" redirect here. For zero-revert rule for administrative action (no wheel-warring), see WP:0WW.

Additional restrictions on reverting may be imposed by the Arbitration Committee, by admins under contentious topics procedures, or by the community under General sanctions. These restrictions include:

one-revert rule (1RR): The one-revert rule is analogous to the three-revert rule as described above, with the words "more than three reverts" replaced by "more than one revert". There may also be a requirement to discuss each reversion on the talk page, and sometimes the phrase "24-hour period" is replaced by some other time period, such as "one week" or "one month". The rule may be applied to pages (excepting Talk pages) or editors.

zero-revert rule (0RR): The zero-revert rule means a complete prohibition on reverts (as defined for the purpose of the three-revert rule) applied to one or more editors.

An imposed rule does not apply retroactively. That is, if an editor has reverted in the past 24 hours before a 1RR has been applied, their first subsequent revert is not a violation, although editors in these instances are strongly encouraged to discuss instead of revert.

Editors of policy and guideline pages are strongly encouraged to follow 1RR or 0RR (see Wikipedia:Policies and guidelines § Bold). Editors may also voluntarily agree to abide by stricter reverting standards on other pages in response to problems in a particular area or as a general editing philosophy. For more details, see Wikipedia:Revert only when necessary.

Handling of edit-warring behaviors

What to do if you see edit-warring behavior

See also: Wikipedia:Dispute resolution

If an edit war develops, participants should try to discuss the issue on the talk page and work things out.

It is better to seek help in addressing the issue than to engage in edit warring. When disagreement becomes apparent, one, both, or all participants should cease warring and discuss the issue on the associated talk page or seek help at appropriate venues. Other alternative approaches recommended within the community are suggested in § How to avoid an edit war.

If the edit warring user(s) appear unaware that edit warring is prohibited, they can be told about this policy by posting a {{subst:uw-ewsoft}}, {{subst:uw-ew}}, or {{subst:uw-3rr}} template message on their user talk page. Avoid posting a generic warning template if you are actively involved in the edit war yourself; it can be seen as aggressive. Consider writing your own note to the user specifically appropriate for the situation, with a view to explicitly cooling things down.

If several days have passed since the last edit action, consider doing nothing—our primary objective is to stop active edit wars.

If, despite such efforts, one or more users fail to cease edit warring, refuse to work collaboratively or heed the information given to them, or do not move on to appropriate dispute resolution, then consider making a request for administrative involvement. The standard way to do this is to add a report at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring.

How to avoid an edit war

Once it is clear there is a dispute, avoid relying solely on edit summaries and discuss the matter on the associated talk page, which is where a reviewing administrator will look for evidence of trying to settle the dispute. Instead of reverting, add an appropriate cleanup tag and keep in mind that there is no due-date. See also Wikipedia:Reverting § Avoid reverting during discussion.

Some experienced editors deliberately adopt a policy of reverting only edits covered by the exceptions listed above or limiting themselves to a single revert; if there is further dispute, they seek dialog or outside help rather than make the problem worse, i.e., they revert only when necessary. This policy may be particularly appropriate for controversial topics where views are polarized and emotions run high, resulting in more frequent edit warring.

When discussion does not produce a conclusion, bringing wider attention to a dispute can lead to compromise. Consider getting a third opinion or starting a request for comment. Neutral editors aware of the dispute will help curb egregious edits while also building consensus about the dispute. If these methods fail, seek informal and formal dispute resolution.

Rather than reverting repeatedly, discuss the matter with others; if a revert is necessary, another editor may conclude the same and do it (without prompting), which would then demonstrate consensus for the action. Request page protection rather than becoming part of the dispute by reverting.

The bottom line: use common sense, and do not participate in edit wars.

Administrator guidance

Administrators decide whether to issue a warning or block; these are intended to prevent, deter, and encourage change in disruptive behavior, not to punish it. Where a block is appropriate, 24 hours is common for a first offense; administrators tend to issue longer blocks for repeated or aggravated violations, and will consider other factors, such as civility and previous blocks. Where multiple editors engage in edit wars or breach 3RR, administrators should consider all sides, since perceived unfairness can fuel issues.

According to WP:Administrators, "Administrators should not normally use their tools in matters in which they are personally involved (for example, in a content dispute in which they are a party)."

See also

• Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring
• Wikipedia:Arguments to avoid in edit wars
• Wikipedia:BOLD, revert, discuss cycle
• Wikipedia:Consensus
• Wikipedia:Dispute resolution
• Wikipedia:Disruptive editing
• Wikipedia:Etiquette
• Wikipedia:Lamest edit wars
• Wikipedia:Ownership of content
• Wikipedia:Page-move war
• Help:Reverting (how-to)
  • Wikipedia:Reverting (essay)
  • Wikipedia:Alternatives to reversion (essay)
  • Wikipedia:Baby and bathwater (essay)
  • Wikipedia:Revert only when necessary (essay)
  • Wikipedia:Don't shoot yourself in the foot (essay)
• Wikipedia:Sockpuppetry
• Wikipedia:Tendentious editing
• Wikipedia:The Wrong Version

Further reading

• Yasseri, Taha; Sumi, Robert; Rung, András; Kornai, András; Kertész, János (June 20, 2012). "Dynamics of Conflicts in Wikipedia". PLOS ONE. 7 (6): e38869. arXiv:1202.3643. Bibcode:2012PLoSO...738869Y. doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0038869. PMC 3380063. PMID 22745683.

Wikipedia is not your priavte blog or a extension of the maidanua.com.ua polictal web portal. The comments removed are borderig on racial hatred and incitement. The commets removed have no relavance to the topic of the main article. Your edits continue to bring wikipedia into disrepute as other editors have noted. Other comments that have been removed are either out-dated wrong tence or lacking citation ad ot of encylopedic in content.

DYK

On 28 January, 2008, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Contracts House, which you created or substantially expanded. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

--Bookworm857158367 (talk) 22:34, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

Move request

If you have a minute, could you make a move? See Talk:FC Metalurg Donetsk for request and discussion. Thanks ahead.--Riurik^(discuss) 06:28, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

Done. —dima/talk/ 21:51, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

Ukrainian-Soviet War

Perhaps you could help expand this newly created article? --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 21:52, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

I'll see what I can do. —dima/talk/ 22:04, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

• hello admin. Since you know more about this than I, can any of these maps be used? Ostap 22:33, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

Well, they are copyrighted, but can be included in the article under the "fair-use" policy if the image meets the criteria listed.. It's better to have a freely-licenced image, but if none are available, then you can upload the copyrighted image.. (as long as it meets the criteria..) —dima/talk/ 03:43, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

Thanks. That sounds like a long way of saying: no. I have a feeling they would probably get deleted anyway. Thanks though. Ostap 03:57, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

Basicly.. I have upload quite a lot of images and they were deleted because they did not fit the "criteria" for fair-use.. I'll try to find some other maps of the war from my book colleection. —dima/talk/ 04:15, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

Milena Markovna Kunis / Milena Markivna Kunis

This is not that important but on Mila Kunis page (actress born in Kyiv). They say her name is Milena Markovna Kunis But even my (female) friend from Crimea uses the Ukrainian version of her Patronymic (Milena Markivna Kunis, (that is not my friends name ofcourse)). I mentioned it on the talk page of the article but nobody responds on the talk page of the article. Can I change it too Milena Markivna Kunis? Russian versions of Ukrainian names irritate me :) Mariah-Yulia (talk) 21:18, 30 January 2008 (UTC) {{subst:ukrwelcome0

Replied at the portal place. Mariah-Yulia, you may also want to look at the issue from the other perspective, where Ukrainian names can be deemed (probably are by some) as irritable.--Riurik^(discuss) 18:52, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

Robin Eggs Photo

I just wanted to tell you that your photo of the American Robin eggs

Fantastic!

is really top notch. Very professional looking.

JennyB (talk) 12:33, 3 February 2008 (UTC)