User talk:Faustian

Nationalism and antisemitism

Your reasoning contains a logical fallacy of the false dilemma type. It's not like there were only two possibilities for Ukrainian nationalists, either cooperate with the Germans and kill the Jews to get independence or nothing. In fact similar proposal were made by the Nazi Germans to the Polish resistance during the war but were flatly refused. As for Himka well I don't have a particular problem with his statement that Anti-Semitims was not the core of Ukrainian nationalism however since that is included then it is intellectually honest that some of the things that Hedviberit presented on the talk page is included as well. Dr. Loosmark 16:58, 16 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Stuff like the other stuff is mentioned. The full info belongs in the OUN article.Faustian (talk) 02:30, 17 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know if you are active on ukr-wiki, but look at http://uk.wikipedia.org/wiki/%D0%A1%D0%BF%D0%B5%D1%86%D1%96%D0%B0%D0%BB%D1%8C%D0%BD%D0%B0:Contributions/Nikkolo , if you want/could do some good there. There is not enough editors and admins to deal with the problem. At least one admin is proHDenial. --Galassi (talk) 19:39, 29 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Merge request - Rimini list

Hi

Sorry to bother you but I just wondered if you though this might be the right approach ... Talk:Rimini List

thanks

Chaosdruid (talk) 09:04, 6 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It's no bother, but I have no opinion. Sorry I couldn't help!Faustian (talk) 03:26, 13 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Reliable source?

Re this addition. I cannot verify that the book even exists. I can't find ISBN, etc. I would seem that it would not be a reliable or verifiable source. Even if the book turned out to be legit, I am extremely skeptical about the claim. Medieval noble families tried to improve their ancestry by creating imaginative genealogical links between them and some famous ruler. I would be very careful, without support in other sources. Thus I removed the claim. Renata (talk) 16:54, 12 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You are correct, and the info is listed as a claim, not The Truth (I'll reword it). It doesn't seem too controversial, as it is corroborated by another (some 17th century Polish chronicler) source describing Huyd's wife as a "close relative" of Shvarn.Faustian (talk) 02:02, 13 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

There is a photo of the book here (scroll down). More is here. If the claim was particularly contentious I would agree, but there is that other referenced bit of info...Faustian (talk) 02:11, 13 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Any genealogical claim that goes back to 13th century and is based only on a 17th century chronicle is garbage. I spent a lot of time and energy weeding out such mythological claims for this and other articles. There are entire dynasties in Lithuanian genealogy (see Palemonids) that never existed and were simply dreamed up to improve somebody's pedigree. Such myths persisted in history books for centuries and only serious scholarly effort weeded them out. Thus I am strongly against including any claim not backed up by contemporary sources. The red flag here should be that none of contemporary (i.e. 13-14th century sources about Mindaugas, Shvarn, etc) talk about any such marriage.

My other big concern is the book itself. It does not seem to be scholarly, to have ISBN, or to be in any libraries. Its author also does not appear in search results. It seems neither reliable (amateurish attempt at genealogy?) and verifiable (impossible to find). So unless you can find some other, scholarly and verifiable, source I am going to remove it.

Also, please be careful with reverts. You reverted a ton of good changes while trying to re-introduce the material. Renata (talk) 04:17, 13 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The author has other books about that family that do have ISBN numbers, see here. Here is the publisher's website. It would be inappropriate to weed out legendary claims, even if by 17th century chroniclers, as they are also notable in and of themselves although they should be labeled as such and it would be inappropriate to include them as if they are indesutable facts. Rather than simply unilaterally remove info isn't it better to go through a process? I am moving this conversation to the article's talk page.Faustian (talk) 13:19, 13 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Reviewer granted

You have been granted the 'reviewer' userright, allowing you to to review other users' edits on certain flagged pages. Pending changes, also known as flagged protection, will be commencing a a two-month trial at approximately 23:00, 2010 June 15 (UTC).

Reviewers can review edits made by users who are not autoconfirmed to articles placed under flagged protection. Flagged protection is applied to only a small number of articles, similarly to how semi-protection is applied but in a more controlled way for the trial.

When reviewing, edits should be accepted if they are not obvious vandalism or BLP violations, and not clearly problematic in light of the reason given for protection (see Wikipedia:Reviewing process). More detailed documentation and guidelines can be found here.

If you do not want this userright, you may ask any administrator to remove it for you at any time. –xeno^talk 13:32, 15 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks!Faustian (talk) 13:49, 15 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]Чи зможеш будьласка перевірити Polish Auxiliary Police. Дякую. Bandurist (talk) 15:08, 15 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]It could use some minor clean-up but looks like a good article.Faustian (talk) 15:21, 15 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]rudling articlehow did you get it? --Львівське (talk) 05:05, 22 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]I googled it and viewed it as a HTML. Here is the link: [1].Faustian (talk) 12:32, 22 September 2010 (UTC)[reply] Thanks man--Львівське (talk) 03:19, 23 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]Russian narrative myths vs. Ukrainian narrativeOutside of the Holodomor, Poltava (Mezepa et al.), and say the whole UPA/OUN Nazi stuff, are there any other instances of historical disagreement between the Kremlin / neo-Soviet school and the western or Ukrainian schools? --Львівське (talk) 05:07, 22 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]The Pereyaslav treaty come to mind. Russian and Ukrainian myth-makers seem to generally agree on the narrative of Polish persecution against Ukrainians prior to Khmelyntsky's uprising, though.Faustian (talk) 17:34, 22 September 2010 (UTC)[reply] Hm, true. I wrote about that once but tied it into Poltava, I guess a research paper could be done on Pereyaslav in of itself as well / cossack autonomy and its place in the empire. Just scratching my head trying to find more discrepancies and cant believe I'm stuck on these when there are so many disputes about "unifying the history books" and all that. There's got to be more dirt --Львівське (talk) 03:55, 23 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]JoDoeHow long will this madness go on for?--Львівське (talk) 15:20, 29 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]More here http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ukrainian_People's_Militia --Galassi (talk) 03:58, 5 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]Hi m8 - hope all is well with you Just been looking over some of his work from the last few weeks and had to take action on a couple. Don't think you are alone... I will keep monitoring things as usual ... It is a shame that he cannot get involved with other things besides just Ukrainian WWII articles, but as he and pawel5586 seem to be getting more and more bold I suppose we will just have to pay more attention to their edits. Can someone with more UPA/OUN experience have a look at the articles: Vsevolod Petrov Ivan Hrynokh Yaroslav Stetsko and Lviv pogroms I will copy this to the Ukraine and Milhist (where necessary) forums also. Chaosdruid (talk) 18:23, 5 October 2010 (UTC)[reply] I'll take a closer look at them but since the sources he uses are not in English, it's hard for me to verify them or fact check. I'll be doing a lot of research over the next several weeks on the OUN/UPA so I'll gladly look into certain things while doing this, but like I said, it's hard to check joe/pawel when they refuse to use legit sources.--Львівське (talk) 23:48, 5 October 2010 (UTC)[reply] He's back: Bergbauernhilfe --Львівське (talk) 07:54, 12 October 2010 (UTC)[reply] He's been replaced with another character of a similar nature: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/Voyevoda , fresh off a 6mos ban.--Galassi (talk) 01:31, 29 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]Hello, Faustian. 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 remove this notice at any time by removing the {{You've got mail}} or {{ygm}} template.Nomination of Ukrainian People's Militia for deletion

A discussion has begun about whether the article Ukrainian People's Militia, which you created or to which you contributed, should be deleted. While contributions are welcome, an article may be deleted if it is inconsistent with Wikipedia policies and guidelines for inclusion, explained in the deletion policy.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ukrainian People's Militia until a consensus is reached, and you are welcome to contribute to the discussion. You may edit the article during the discussion, including to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion template from the top of the article. Bridgeplayer (talk) 03:58, 6 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]Massacre of Lviv professorsMy grandfather was among the murdered professors in the Lwow massacre. I strongly advise you against attempting to reinstate that ugly defamation of his memory. J.kunikowski (talk) 23:49, 19 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]It is a referenced fact. Perhaps we can word it in a more sensitive way for you?Faustian (talk) 03:22, 20 October 2010 (UTC)[reply] I see that it's been reworded somewhat.Faustian (talk) 03:25, 20 October 2010 (UTC)[reply] I've written a note on the article's talk page, here, to hopefully clarify things.Faustian (talk) 03:58, 20 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]"A referenced fact"? Just because somebody claims something it is not a fact. You tried to portray the murdered professors as collaborationist which is appalling. I don't want you to reword those insults, I want you to remove them at once. J.kunikowski (talk) 12:42, 20 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]Thank you for your opinion. The discussion is on the article's talk page, if you would like to contribute to it.Faustian (talk) 12:43, 20 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there currently is a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. GiftigerWunsch [BODY DOUBLE] 16:44, 20 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]HalloI would rather want them to stay, since they will be of interest to the editor debating the issue. Also I would welcome your response to the questions regarding the content and sourcing of the publication(which are at odds with other sources showing political non-involvment of the victims).--MyMoloboaccount (talk) 16:31, 22 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]I can address them but that section should be for uninvolved editors, not us.Faustian (talk) 16:35, 22 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]HiI would really welcome if you would concentrate on articles and their content. There is no need to be incivil and I hope that we can work together in friendly atmosphere to create better articles. Thank you. --MyMoloboaccount (talk) 18:37, 24 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]I would like that too and have generally been civil.Faustian (talk) 22:48, 24 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]Report[2]--Jacurek (talk) 19:31, 25 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]Massacres of Poles in VolhyniaHey. I was doing some reading and (apparently I didn't clue in before) it came to light that during this event, Poles also engaged in ethnic cleansing and killing of civilians, and that there's debate over who threw the first stone. Since both sides engaged in the same actions against eachother, do you think the article as a whole, and its title, should reflect the event as a mutual conflict? And not just the Polish narrative/aspect of events? From what I've read, 20,000 Ukrainians were also killed by Poles, which is a substantial number, and I don't get why this fact is relegated to a minor note. Considering that if I were to start an article by itself about the Polish actions, the history/background would be identical and it would involve a lot of material from the original article....should the 'Massacres' article evolve or should a separate article be made and eventually be required to merge since it would be so similar? --Львівське (talk) 05:49, 5 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]Lvov AbbreviationsIn your edits of the article on Lvov please remember that according to the Wikipedia:Manual of Style#Acronyms and abbreviations no full stop is commonly preferred in British and other usage with abbreviations. So please do not put pg. 42, please use p42 instead.--Toddy1 (talk) 12:47, 5 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]Sorry, I'm used to American guidelines. Does wikipedia prefer British usage? If so I'll try to switch over. I've published academic works using the style I use here, so I apologise in advance if I absent-mindedly forget. Habits are hard to break....Faustian (talk) 13:02, 5 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]HolodomorNot sure how interested you are in the topic but the article is becoming under siege from some neo-Soviet POV pushers, just a heads up --Львівське (talk) 05:04, 11 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]Happy Faustian's Day!Faustian has been identified as an Awesome Wikipedian, so I've officially declared today as Faustian's Day! For being a great person and awesome Wikipedian, enjoy being the star of the day, Faustian! Signed, Neutralhomer A record of your Day will always be kept here.For a userbox you can add to your userbox page, click here. Have a Great Day...Neutralhomer • Talk • 05:34, 16 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]The above is on behalf of User:Rlevse. - Neutralhomer • Talk • 05:34, 16 November 2010 (UTC)[reply] Thank you!Faustian (talk) 13:47, 16 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]HolodomorHello An important sour ce about the victims of the Holodomor is the following study : http://www.memory.gov.ua/data/upload/publication/main/ua/841/libanova.pdf Best regards 90.2.91.168 (talk) 22:48, 25 November 2010 (UTC)[reply] Hello An interesting source for all death and birth comparison across the soviet union http://www.famine.unimelb.edu.au/1928-33cdrcbr.php I don't know if these figures are with corrected data provided by Libanova. Best regards 90.35.91.183 (talk) 22:38, 13 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]Not going to throw your hat in on the mediation? I saw that you jumped in, and since you've participated in the past, figured I'd ask before the deadline came up--Львівське (говорити) 20:32, 22 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]Image tagging for File:Lvivpogrom.jpgThanks for uploading File:Lvivpogrom.jpg. You don't seem to have said where the image came from or who created it. We require this information to verify that the image is legally usable on Wikipedia, and because most image licenses require giving credit to the image's creator. To add this information, click on this link, then click the "Edit" tab at the top of the page and add the information to the image's description. If you need help, post your question on Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. For more information on using images, see the following pages:Wikipedia:Image use policy Wikipedia:Image copyright tagsThank you for your cooperation. --ImageTaggingBot (talk) 17:05, 3 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]Blue Army (Poland)‎Please stop revert-warring with User:Hallersarmy. Instead of using terse edit summaries, please try to engage Hallersarmy on the article's Talk page. Thank you. — Malik Shabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 03:36, 13 January 2011 (UTC)[reply] What about being blocked due to the 3 reverts in a single day warning as I received? Hallersarmy (talk) 04:30, 13 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]Faustian hasn't made three reverts today. You just made your fourth. — Malik Shabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 04:37, 13 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]I just made my third and final revert. I did this only because I added comments to the talk page detailing my rationale for the moves being made. This revert consists primarily of just re-adding referenced material to relaible sources that are being removed.Faustian (talk) 05:23, 13 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]Request for mediation rejectedThe request for mediation concerning Example, to which you were listed as a party, has been declined. An explanation of why it has not been possible for this dispute to proceed to formal mediation is provided at the mediation request page (which will be deleted by an administrator after a reasonable time). Questions relating to the rejection of this dispute can be directed to the Committee chairperson or e-mailed to the mediation mailing list. For more information on other available steps in the dispute resolution process, see Wikipedia:Dispute resolution.For the Mediation Committee, AGK 15:26, 15 January 2011 (UTC)[reply] (Delivered by MediationBot, on behalf of the Mediation Committee.)ПитанняВи з України? 79.124.187.39 (talk) 19:46, 22 March 2011 (UTC)[reply] Ні - з ЧікагоFaustian (talk) 00:23, 23 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]New articleI'm going to start a new article, but just wondering what you think it should be called. For the entirety of the Polish-Ukrainian conflict that encompassed the massacres of Poles in Volhynia, and Galicia, and also the 'retaliations'. What works best: "Polish-Ukrainian civil war" "Polish-Ukrainian conflict (1943-1947)" or "Polish-Ukrainian war (1943-1947)"?--Львівське (talk) 21:13, 1 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]The middle one seems best and most nuetral. Good luck! I will help if I can, but am too busy to do so substantially.Faustian (talk) 23:23, 1 April 2011 (UTC)[reply] Yeah, I asked Magocsi as well and he said "conflict" is the best descriptor of it. Snyder, among others, refer to it as a civil war several times (Piotrowski, obviously, says anyone who holds this view "doesn't know what they're talking about"), so I guess I'll include it in the lede. I wrote a paper on the subject recently, so to do the article I just need to port it over and reformat the refs, and remove any stuff relating to the thesis. It's already broken down with background and each side's actions, and a section on death toll, so it'll leapfrog the stub phase and be done pretty quick. Hopefully this article will alleviate the problems the 'massacres of poles' article brings when polish editors want to censor facts on its context, and it'll allow that article to get trimmed down and refocused.--Львівське (talk) 23:33, 1 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]QuestionCan you weigh in? 1--Львівське (talk) 06:13, 7 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]LetterCould you read this and this. I think its worth to know these facts. Redgards--Paweł5586 (talk) 07:22, 18 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]The letter sounds reasonable to me. What's the point of it? Is there a wikipedia article about this debate and about the museum in Canada?Faustian (talk) 12:28, 18 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]1907This may interest you - “An Unlikely Alliance: the 1907 Ukrainian-Jewish Electoral Coalition.” Yohanan Petrovsky-Shtern, History, et al. Nations and Nationalism 15 (3) 2009: 483-505. The authors examine the political alliance between Ukrainian and Jewish national activists in the 1907 Austrian elections. They find that, rather than treating each other as staunch enemies, the two sets of activists were able to overcome profound differences in order to form an electoral alliance that would forge a new paradigm in Ukrainian-Jewish relations.--Galassi (talk) 20:05, 22 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]Thanks. Any links? I don't have access to an academic library.Faustian (talk) 22:15, 22 June 2011 (UTC)[reply] You might want to ask YPS himself. He is approachable.--Galassi (talk) 23:06, 22 June 2011 (UTC)[reply] Unrelated, but useful - http://www.istpravda.com.ua/articles/2011/06/23/43692/.--Galassi (talk) 11:38, 24 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]Your editIs discussed here. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk to me} 17:28, 4 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]Thank you!Faustian (talk) 01:28, 5 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]T:TDYKThank you for creating Volhynia Experiment. Why not nominate such a good article at T:TDYK? --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk to me} 17:04, 20 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]That would be great! I just don't have time to figure out/relearn the steps involved with that now.Faustian (talk) 17:06, 20 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]Ukraine Barnstar I give you this Ukraine Barnstar for writing Volhynia Experiment. A well written article that shines an interesting light on the building of Ukrainian statehood. — Yulia Romero • Talk to me! 17:52, 5 November 2011 (UTC) [reply]Thank you!Faustian (talk) 15:49, 9 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]Formal mediation has been requestedThe Mediation Committee has received a request for formal mediation of the dispute relating to "Blue Army (Poland).". 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 November 2011. 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. 04:50, 21 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]Request for mediation rejectedThe request for formal mediation concerning Blue Army (Poland) 2, 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, AGK [•] 11:03, 21 November 2011 (UTC)[reply] (Delivered by MediationBot, on behalf of the Mediation Committee.)File:Basarab Olha-1-.jpg needs authorship informationDear uploader: The media file you uploaded as File:Basarab Olha-1-.jpg appears to be missing information as to its authorship (and or source), or if you did provide such information, it is confusing for others trying to make use of the image. It would be appreciated if you would consider updating the file description page, to make the authorship of the media clearer. Although some images may not need author information in obvious cases, (such where an applicable source is provided), authorship information aids users of the image, and helps ensure that appropriate credit is given (a requirement of some licenses). If you created this media yourself, please consider explicitly including your user name, for which: {{subst:usernameexpand|Faustian}} will produce an appropriate expansion, or use the {{own}} template. If this is an old image, for which the authorship is unknown or impossible to determine, please indicate this on the file description page. If you have any questions please see Help:File page. Thank you. Sfan00 IMG (talk) 10:29, 24 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]All that UPA jazzIn regard to [3], I put {dubious} but perhaps {contradictory} would have made more sense? The problem I saw was (outside of there being no source) it was contradicting the previous sentence by stating Soviets were "the only major" concern. I guess with a source proving they were "the only" concern this would fly, but standing alone it sounded 'dubious' to me that Ukrainian reports were contradicting themselves. Perhaps changing the phrasing to read 'According to _______ ANOTHER major concern was.." would be less...conflicting?--Львівське (говорити) 22:12, 10 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]I think it was fron Snyder's Reconstruction... which I don't have next to the computer here. Basically, the situation was quiet in 1942, other than Soviet partisans. The Polish underground were making some preparations but did not engage in any activities.Faustian (talk) 22:49, 10 March 2012 (UTC)[reply] I'm having trouble finding it at quick glance, he never mentions "1942" specifically in the book a single time --Львівське (говорити) 22:01, 11 March 2012 (UTC)[reply] I checked too and couldn't find it...I must have read it somewhere else....Faustian (talk) 23:27, 11 March 2012 (UTC)[reply] wikireality.ru/wiki/%D0%A3%D0%BA%D1%80%D0%B0%D0%B8%D0%BD%D1%81%D0%BA%D0%B8%D0%B5_%D0%BD%D0%B0%D1%86%D0%B8%D0%BE%D0%BD%D0%B0%D0%BB%D0%B8%D1%81%D1%82%D1%8B --Galassi (talk) 23:41, 11 March 2012 (UTC)[reply] That's crazy. Aren't there rules against doing that to editors (not to mention that I am opposed to nationalism of all forms, including Ukrainian - opposing Polish and Russian nationalism does not make one a Ukrainian nationalist)? Can something be done to remove that?Faustian (talk) 03:08, 12 March 2012 (UTC)[reply] No. That's not Wikipedia. It is an entirely different organization devoted entirely to various forms of libel and outing, anti-semitic and anti-ukrainian, among other niceties.--Galassi (talk) 04:20, 12 March 2012 (UTC)[reply] Well, I'm glad I've left all personal info off here. Faustian (talk) 04:47, 12 March 2012 (UTC)[reply] WOW! Looking at the history, I see our old friend Jo0doe has found a new home. Yikes. --Львівське (говорити) 22:02, 14 March 2012 (UTC)[reply] Is he also active on commons? If so, would his participation on that website be grounds for blocking on commons?22:13, 14 March 2012 (UTC) Yep, still active, same ol' Jo0doe [4] --Львівське (говорити) 05:53, 15 March 2012 (UTC)[reply] And apparently he was using Greyhood as a proxy to participate in the Holodomor mediation cabal?? [5] --Львівське (говорити) 05:55, 15 March 2012 (UTC)[reply] Ask Fut.Perf if anything could done with such a proxy/meatpuppet canvassing.--Galassi (talk) 09:27, 15 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]Can't tell if this is a POV edit or a legit removal, but was there support? Not too up on this topic in particular [6] --Львівське (говорити) 05:44, 4 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]The statement has been unsourced for almost a year so we can't really object to its removal.Faustian (talk) 16:03, 4 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]Dispute resolution surveyDispute Resolution – Survey Invite Hello Faustian. I am currently conducting a study on the dispute resolution processes on the English Wikipedia, in the hope that the results will help improve these processes in the future. Whether you have used dispute resolution a little or a lot, now we need to know about your experience. The survey takes around five minutes, and the information you provide will not be shared with third parties other than to assist in analyzing the results of the survey. No personally identifiable information will be released. Please click HERE to participate. Many thanks in advance for your comments and thoughts. You are receiving this invitation because you have had some activity in dispute resolution over the past year. For more information, please see the associated research page. Steven Zhang ^{DR goes to Wikimania!} 02:14, 6 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]Serious case of VandalismHello, Faustian... it appears that you have made a very serious error in judgment! You re-added material that was collectively agreed upon as being inaccurate, you yourself stated so on the "Talk" page, and thus discredited your efforts... as now, it is very easy to prove that you (despite you many contributions to other Wiki pages) have a personal agenda. This also, can be grounds for temporary blocking of you profile, and I will make effort to bring this issue up to other users. --91.150.222.61 (talk) 12:12, 9 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]Another anon from Poland being disruptive.Faustian (talk) 19:31, 9 April 2012 (UTC)[reply] Wow, someone is showing signs of some serious anti-Polish bias... why, would it matter that someone is an "anon" from Poland, or any other country for that matter? Why bring that into the conversation, Faustian? The only issue that was raised is the neutrality of this article... that happens thousands of times here on Wikipedia, and someone's IP address origin is never discussed. Thanks for proving my point that you have serious issues of bias, and neutrality! --91.150.222.225 (talk) 13:56, 22 April 2012 (UTC)[reply] No, it is a fact that there is a history of anon Polish IPs, such as you, making disruptive nationalistic edits on wikipedia. This is attested by the blocs that these nationalistic disruptive IPs, such as you, earn. I freely admit that I am biased against Polish (or any other nationality) anon IPS that make disruptive nationalistic edits.17:13, 22 April 2012 (UTC) Many disputes have users from numerous countries contributing to any given subject, and there is absolutely no need to single out any particular nationality, that's just bias, and has a loaded connotation attached to it. Such statements are discouraged per Wiki rules, and it's difficult to say that my argument is nationalistic, when my primary issue was the removal of two phrases that were agreed-on in the "discussion" page as being inaccurate. How is that nationalistic, what's being denied? --91.150.222.225 (talk) 19:46, 23 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]Possibly unfree File:Tarnavsky.jpgA file that you uploaded or altered, File:Tarnavsky.jpg, has been listed at Wikipedia:Possibly unfree files because its copyright status is unclear or disputed. If the file's copyright status cannot be verified, it may be deleted. You may find more information on the file description page. You are welcome to add comments to its entry at the discussion if you are interested in it not being deleted. Thank you. Stefan2 (talk) 15:15, 4 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]Малая РусьThe article on Little Russia talks about changes in perception of the term Малая Русь. For Taras Shevchenko, this was the preferred term for Ukraine. The term was perceived differently by some people in the 1980s, when Ukraine was part of the USSR. Since the contention of the article is the perception of the term has changed over time, a source from the 1980s is not evidence of how the term is perceived 24 years after publication.--Toddy1 (talk) 06:25, 17 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]Do you have evidence that is is perceived differently now than in the 1980's? The word Ukraine has also changed meaning; does a work published in the 1980's stating that Ukraine is the word used for the people become "in the 1980's the people referred to themselves as Ukrainians"?Faustian (talk) 14:37, 17 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]Good article reassessmentKiev Offensive (1920), an article that you may be interested in, has been nominated for a good article reassessment. If you are interested in the discussion, please participate by adding your comments to the good article reassessment page. If concerns are not addressed during the review period, the good article status will be removed from the article. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 16:21, 7 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]DmowskiThanks for having broadened this. After my failed attempts to introduce material critical of the National Democracy and recent reverts here I almost lost hope that anything critical of the nasty heroes of Polish ultranationalism can be said here. Keep up your contributions!--Miacek and his crime-fighting dog (woof!) 17:58, 25 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]Thanks!Faustian (talk) 22:11, 25 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]Black Hundredhttp://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Black_Hundreds&curid=1253797&action=history BH's antiUkrainian sentiments were deleted from the article. I'd appreciate your opinion (can't do it myself, due to the topic-ban).--Galassi (talk) 21:08, 10 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]UPA stuffwhat's going on there, looks like this user is inserting a lot of stuff from the ukrainian wiki? changed the flag, the size of the army, and loads of content. Should a mass revert happen and sort this on the talk page? Just too much stuff in the diffs for me to handle at the moment--Львівське (говорити) 15:21, 30 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]I'm busy in real life for extensive work nowadays. My admittedly superficial impression of that user is that he might be a Ukrainian nationalist version of the Polish nationalists who used to disrupt such pages in the past.Faustian (talk) 15:44, 30 May 2013 (UTC)[reply] I too am too busy with 'real life' and haven't been editing much in the last several months...*sigh* I'd hate for the page to turn to shit.--Львівське (говорити) 23:04, 30 May 2013 (UTC)[reply] If it gets awful I'll step in; that hasn't happened yet.Faustian (talk) 02:28, 31 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]Testing timesI know you decided to walk away in depair some time ago, and I fully respect that. But I wondered if you had any views on the current discussion about the article title at Talk:Rorschach test? Many thanks. Martinevans123 (talk) 15:48, 30 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]Disambiguation link notification for June 4Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Western Ukrainian nobility, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Przemysl (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject. It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 13:17, 4 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]June 2013Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to Western Ukrainian nobility 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(Click show ⇨) with the Canadian Institute of Ukrainian Studies at the University of Alberta, pg.116</ref>). During the late nineteenth centruy until the 1930s more than half of the priestly families in

Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 04:47, 5 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to Carpathian Ruthenia 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:who self-identify as [[Ukrainians]], many of whom may also be considered Ruthenian-speakers ([[Rusyns]] who may refer to themselves and their language as ''Rusnak'' or ''Lemko''. [[Places http://www.carpathia.gov.ua/en/news/detail/1247.htm | accessdate=2008-12-28} | language=Ukrainian}}</ref><ref>{{cite web | title = Rusyns Recognized as Indigenous Nationality of the TranscarpathianThanks, BracketBot (talk) 13:23, 11 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]Notice of Edit warring noticeboard discussionHello. 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. The thread is Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring#History_of_the_Ukrainian_minority_in_Poland. Thank you. —194.44.15.214 (talk) 11:20, 10 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]Notice of Neutral point of view noticeboard discussionHello, Faustian. This message is being sent to inform you that there currently is a discussion at Wikipedia:Neutral point of view/Noticeboard regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. The thread is History of the Ukrainian minority in Poland.The discussion is about the topic Education. Thank you. --194.44.15.214 (talk) 14:54, 11 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]KarkocI don't know if you've seen this story, but there's a Wikipedia article on it: Michael Karkoc. Just giving you heads up because it looks like one of those articles which could become trouble so the more sensible eyes on it the better.Volunteer Marek 00:53, 27 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]Roman DmowskiAccording to [7], you are one of the main contributors to this article. I am done with my rewrite of it, and I'd like to submit it to GAN in the near future. Any comments and edits would be much appreciated, --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 15:11, 19 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]I'm busy IRL but your changes look good!Faustian (talk) 06:04, 20 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]Blue ArmyFaustian, please proof ready your edit... Also, I understand you added more background about Gibson, but trying to include a bio about the man is not really the place on the Blue Army's page. The edit is going off the subject. --Factor01 (talk) 07:01, 18 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]When information by Gibson about Haller and Jews is included, the fact that Gibson was an antisemite and that he and his colleagues disliked Jews, ridiculed them, accused them of being exploiters, etc. is quite notable.Faustian (talk) 07:05, 18 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]RfC Lemkos v RusynsJust wondering if I can get an outside opinion on this argument. Essentially, a user wants to combine people in Poland who self-identify as 'Lemko' as 'Rusyn', despite what the census actually says. I've provided sources with quotes describing the ethnonym situation but to no avail. If you have time to check it out, thanks in advance. --Львівське (говорити) 04:42, 14 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]Haller's Blue ArmyI've re-added newly included sourced text that you conveniently also reverted with you last edit. As for the other issues I will start to address them one by one individually on the article talk page. Next time. why don't you look at the changes instead of automatically reverting text wholesale. Finally, quit calling people disruptive, as what I did falls within the listed guidelines WP:BRD. --89.64.208.222 (talk) 13:49, 26 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]Genrikh YagodaHello, Faustian I would like to request your editing experts on the topic of Genrikh Yagoda, and in particular his involvement in the Holodomor in the Ukraine. I would like to augment this section, and if you have any sourced input it would be greatly appreciated. --89.64.208.222 (talk) 14:43, 26 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]I'm not interested in him, sorry.Faustian (talk) 14:46, 26 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]Revert editCan you please explain why you reverted the edits? They were not involving any of the material in the Controversies section. You can check for yourself. What I did was to clean up the text and make grammatical improvements to other sections. --COD T 3 (talk) 00:27, 28 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]You are adding a POV and original research into the intro.Faustian (talk) 00:31, 28 February 2014 (UTC)[reply] Well than adjust that section, I also improved may many other parts of that article. --COD T 3 (talk) 00:32, 28 February 2014 (UTC)[reply] I recommend you request the help of another admin, these changes are in no way POV, and now you are edit warring. Because as I noted I did not touch the controversies section, but I did change the last section of the intro to make it more encyclopedic in tone not POV. So, I encourage you to get a neutral admin to look at this issue. --COD T 3 (talk) 00:36, 28 February 2014 (UTC)[reply] Making excuses is not "encyclopedic in tone." Faustian (talk) 00:37, 28 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]Possible text versionOk, here is a version that notes the civilian abuse first. During the subsequent military campaigns in Galicia, elements of the Blue Army were involved in sporadic incidents of antisemitic violence and civilian abuse; where Jewish and Ukrainian political organizations actively supported foreign interests hostile to Poland, including Bolshevik Russia, and Marxist elements in Western Ukraine, along with post-war revolutionary Germany in the west. --COD T 3 (talk) 01:25, 28 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]Hello! There is a DR/N request you may have interest in.This message is being sent to let you know of a discussion at the Wikipedia:Dispute resolution noticeboard regarding a content dispute discussion you may have participated in. Content disputes can hold up article development and make editing difficult for editors. You are not required to participate, but you are both invited and encouraged to help find a resolution. The discussion is about the topic Blue Army (Poland). Please join us to help form a consensus. Thank you! — TransporterMan (TALK) 17:30, 7 March 2014 (UTC) (DRN volunteer)[reply]March 2014You have been blocked from editing for a period of 24 hours for edit warring, as you did at Blue Army (Poland). Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions. If you think there are good reasons why you should be unblocked, you may appeal this block by adding the following text below this notice: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}. However, you should read the guide to appealing blocks first.During a dispute, you should first try to discuss controversial changes and seek consensus. If that proves unsuccessful, you are encouraged to seek dispute resolution, and in some cases it may be appropriate to request page protection. Sandstein 19:21, 20 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]Arbitration enforcement warning: Eastern EuropeThe Arbitration Committee has permitted administrators to impose discretionary sanctions (information on which is at Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee/Discretionary sanctions) on any editor who is active on pages broadly related to Eastern Europe. Discretionary sanctions can be used against an editor who repeatedly or seriously fails to adhere to the purpose of Wikipedia, satisfy any standard of behavior, or follow any normal editorial process. If you inappropriately edit pages relating to this topic, you may be placed under sanctions, which can include blocks, a revert limitation, or an article ban. The Committee's full decision can be read at the "Final decision" section of the decision page. Please familiarise yourself with the information page at Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee/Discretionary sanctions, with the appropriate sections of Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee/Procedures, and with the case decision page before making any further edits to the pages in question. This notice is given by an uninvolved administrator and will be logged on the case decision, pursuant to the conditions of the Arbitration Committee's discretionary sanctions system.Please see the block notice above for context. Sandstein 19:26, 20 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]