User talk:Alex Bakharev

Archives:

• Archive1
• Archive2
• Archive3
• Archive4
• Archive5
• Archive6
• Archive7
• Archive8
• Archive9
• Archive10
• Archive11
• Archive12
• Archive13
• Archive14
• Archive15
• Archive16
• Archive17
• Archive18
• Archive19
• Archive20
• Archive21

NewArtBot

Hi, Alex! Since the bot goes down pretty much every time you go on vacation and, as it is becoming ever more popular, you are starting to get more and more panicky messages, is it possible for someone else to run the bot in your absence? It is, obviously, too late to worry this time, but perhaps it can be arranged for your future leaves? I'd be more than willing to take the responsibility for running the bot next time, except I have no idea what it is that I'll need to be doing :), so it may not be technically possible. In any case, let me know when you come back. Hope you are having a great time wherever it is you are now! Best,—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); 15:29, 1 August 2008 (UTC)

Regarding this, is it possible to write full paths instead of internal Wikipedia links in the logs (or not to link them at all) to avoid cluttering Special:WhatLinksHere? Then interested people will find relevant feeds much more easily. Colchicum (talk) 20:49, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

Hello - Thanks for your new article bot! Could you take a look at the User:AlexNewArtBot/Statistics to make sure I added the rules for stubs and cats correctly. Also, I added a mini-navbar to User:AlexNewArtBot/StatisticsSearchResult - can I add that to the rules and log pages as well, or will the bot overwrite them? Regards—G716 <^T·_C> 12:40, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

User:24.79.215.70

Hi,

I noticed you blocked User:24.79.215.70 that IP 3 times so far. Could you please consider blocking it againg, for some longer period. If you just look at his talk page, you will some only warnrings about vandalism. Since this user is interested only in Croatia and Serbia, and IP is not from neither of those countries, it is propably permanent IP , used for vandalism only.

Regards, Ante Perkovic (talk) 15:39, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

Reminder about Kiev Metro

You are receiving this message because you are listed as the protecting admin for Kiev Metro. The page has been semiprotected for longer than 2 months without an expiry date set. Because Wikipedia relies on contributers to make the encyclopedia, I'm asking you to review your decision and either

• Unprotect the page if protection is no longer needed, or
• set a reasonable expiry date for the protection instead of leaving it on forever

I hope that you will do one of the two in order to reduce the backlog of pages that have been semiprotected for very long period of time. If there are other pages you have also protected, I will try not to give more reminder, but I hope that you will double check your protection log to pick up and pages you might have forgotten. Thank you. -Royalguard11(T) 20:01, 6 August 2008 (UTC) Why am I receiving this message?

Abkhazian SSR

Участники user:Kintetsubuffalo и user:Kuban kazak опять проталкивают идею что ССР Абхазия была полноценной республикой Советского Союза (в шаблонах с флагами и гербами республик СССР). Наверное их оригинальные исследования исходят из-за дописки "ССР" у этой республики ССР Грузии. Прошу помочь мне удалить ложную информацию и как-то уладить конфликт. --Pianist 01:41, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

Список статей (шаблонов):

• Coats of arms of the Soviet Republics‎
• Template:Coat of arms of the Soviet Republics‎
• Coat of arms of the Abkhazian SSR‎
• Template:Republics of the Soviet Union

Hello!

Hello! Are you back from your vacation yet? You have a pretty big amount of feedback about your bot. JIP | Talk 05:01, 10 August 2008 (UTC)

Yes please. I need my new article fix! :) Rebecca (talk) 10:27, 10 August 2008 (UTC)

Pianist ru

See Special:Contributions/Pianist_ru, he seems to be edit warring with others, doesn't use talk pages much, responds to others in Russian though this is the English wiki, etc. I get complaints about him. What's your take on this situation. — Rlevse • Talk • 11:47, 10 August 2008 (UTC)

• Yes, his command of English does not seem to be very strong and he is very stubborn, etc. In short pianist.ru is not the most pleasant collaborator on en wiki. Still regarding inclusion of Abkhazian SSR into various Soviet Union-related templates he is right. Despite its name Abkhazian SSR was not a full member of the Soviet Union. It was the only territory having a special status of a contractual republic of the Transcaucasian Soviet Federative Socialist Republic that seems to be closer to the status of an Autonomous Socialist Republic like e.g. Tatar Autonomous Soviet Socialist Republic than to a full Union member even short lived like e.g. Karelo-Finnish Soviet Socialist Republic. Alex Bakharev (talk) 12:28, 10 August 2008 (UTC)

Well, he certainly needs to be less stubborn and either needs to communicate in English or move along to the Russian wiki. — Rlevse • Talk • 13:04, 10 August 2008 (UTC)

Hi Alex, sorry to take so long to get back to you. I don't have sources, but he is absolutely a problem even if he is correct, he rides roughshod over other editors, destroys wording of articles, even naming conventions of those articles. He seriously needs to be watched closely, up to blocking. Chris (クリス • フィッチ) (talk) 23:29, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

ossetia intro

except one single line, and the added reference line stating russian demands, all the remaining were written already..what you reverted to also has the same lines..thus making you adopt poorly written lines..i have added headers thats all..see discussion on article lead length/ cutting down the same..Cityvalyu (talk) 00:34, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

As a matter of fact I have problems with this one line: Georgia invaded the breakaway republic of South ossetia forcing half the population to flee into russia.Russia responded by sending peacekeeping forces. It is bad English and the narrative is not accurate and biased. The line is not here at present so I would not beat the dead horse Alex Bakharev (talk) 01:43, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

Kasachstan

Hi, I'm sorry to bother you again. I don't know if you programmed your bot to do Portal:Kazakhstan/New article announcements, but its not working. Can you fix it? Thanks.--BoguslavM 21:58, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

Human rights in the Soviet Union

Hi, can you help with this article? I have been trying to make the article more neutral and factual, but user Biophys keeps on reverting to the version he likes. Here is a comparison of his edits and mine. He reverts all of my edits (well now all except one) including the tags and sourced information. The user has no objectivity when it comes to the topic and is also unable to discuss the issues in detail. The particular issues are listed here. Can you tell him to be neutral and stop reverting? -YMB29 (talk) 18:20, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

I responded here.Biophys (talk) 18:36, 12 August 2008 (UTC). Alex, in case you want to fix anything in this article yourself, please do. Biophys (talk) 19:03, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

Want to take part in it?

Hello, I recived your name after asking about Russian editors.

I hope you know about this list. If you can, please start helping in making it shorter (no - don't delete topics from the list. I mean creat articles. You can also make it bigger by adding topics).

Have a good day! Kostan1 (talk) 16:40, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

• I would rather make it longer. My own list of the articles needed to be created is much longer Alex Bakharev (talk) 00:40, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

Feel like protectinng another article?

Please protect the Igor Sikorsky article so only esteblished registered users could edit it.

For a long time I'm interested in helicopters, and read alot about Sikorsky. Today I entered to the article about him and saw weird information. Not only that, the sources clamed something else. Someone there constantly enters information about his ethnicity which is not true. This person have done it from two IP's: [1], [2]. Maybe he used more I don't know I only now went thru the history there to compare versions. It's some weird Ukrainian or Polish person hating Russian's. For example, after a visit on the talk page I understood that long time ago they agreed he's a Russian American, but this person deleted at first Russian American and wrote Ukrainian American. Now the ethnicity. Sikorsky's father, a known professor of Psychology, was half Russian half Polish and was a Russian nationalist. This user write's Ukrainian instead of Russian. If that wouln't be so sad that would be funny. Please do something about it. Kostan1 (talk) 11:32, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

It would be nice to protect it this way for a few years but that is fine to. Thank you! Kostan1 (talk) 11:50, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

Picture licensing

Could you please take a look at [3]? At least RIA Novosti explicitely disallows this: "Запрещается любое использование фото, графических, информационно-графических, видео, аудио и иных размещенных на сайтах материалов, принадлежащих Агентству и иным лицам."

An unrelated issue: how about this? Colchicum (talk) 16:35, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

I guess PGlukhov already received quite a stern warning (User_talk:Pglukhov#Copyvio_image_uploads). I hope he will be more copyright conscious in the future so no administrative actions would be needed.

Regarding the logs of the bot I am not sure. I see the advantage of removing the wikilinking so not to pollute the whatlinkshere data. On the other hand I have a script installed that shows tops of the wikipages when I hover the mouse pointer over the wikilinks. It is quite convenient to just move the mouse and see if the page is relevant or not. If there will be external style links I would need to click on the link and wait until it opens and if no linking whatsoever I would have to copypaste the name of an article into the searchbox. It is much less convenient. On the third hand (so to speak) it seems like nowadays you are doing much more of the bot work than me so if changes in the logs would not affect your performance I would manage. Let me think for a couple more days Alex Bakharev (talk) 01:49, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

Question

Hello. As a member of the WikiProject Olympics can I create a new job for your bot? Point is that many new articles about Olympic sportspeople appear now and we aren't able to catch all of them manually. I think the only parameters should be "Olympic" and "Olympiad", that should be sufficient. Can I go forward? Thank you. - Darwinek (talk) 11:07, 16 August 2008 (UTC)

I have started the feed, lets see how it would work Alex Bakharev (talk) 07:40, 17 August 2008 (UTC)

Thank you very much. :) I think if good set, this feed could be actually very much accurate. I will notify the WikiProject Olympics. - Darwinek (talk) 16:59, 17 August 2008 (UTC)

Guys, don't use the word "Olympiad". It has little to do with the Olympics: [4] Colchicum (talk) 17:03, 17 August 2008 (UTC)

I see. I just saw here several articles (badly written) about the Olympic sportspeople which used only the "Olympiad" word. But you are right it would create many false positives. - Darwinek (talk) 17:13, 17 August 2008 (UTC)

Sorry to bug you again

I'm now learning the rules on Wikipedia, and I read this. According to this page, articles constantly vandalised can be semi-protected forever.

I would like to ask you to do it to the next articles, I also explaine why.

• Russians - Some obsessed person constantly changes, at least two times a month, the numbers of Russians in every country to false figures on purpouse. Think you have noticed it.
• Igor Sikorsky - You protected this article, thank you, but from the history page this person changing detales about his origin didn't to it one time just for fun, he returns after a while.

I belive that will forever close the case of those pages being obssesively vandaled. Kostan1 (talk) 21:28, 17 August 2008 (UTC)

• I have semiprotected Russians do not know what else can be done. Sikorsky was born in Kiev and has Polish last name. It makes it almost certain that somebody would change his ethnicity to either Ukrainian or Polish. Alex Bakharev (talk) 01:17, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

Yes but for example his father was half Russian half Polish. When someone changes Russian to Ukrainian in an obsessive way that is clear vandalism, thats why I ask for an eternal semi-protection here. Kostan1 (talk) 12:03, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

Alex, as you can see, this user makes grammatic errors in almost every English word. He is not familiar with the subject, just like his colleague YMB. I spent a lot of time talking with YMB and them, but without any visible result. Sorry. This should stop. I can try to improve this article, but their intervention is not helpful.Biophys (talk) 02:04, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

Many wikipedians have imperfect English (well, including myself). If their edits are in good faith then they can contribute productively (though some native speaker has to cleanup their writings). Alex Bakharev (talk) 04:40, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

The problem is not really English. I am working towards a compromise with edits like that and reply at talk page(you are welcome check my other edits), but YMB simply reverts everything. Seriously, this YMB should be blocked (look also at his talk page).Biophys (talk) 05:43, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

You work towards a compromise? I started a discussion on the talk page, unlike you YMB uses it. You revert war, delete sourced material, use weasel words, and after that you say we "don't know the subject" and you "work towards a compromise"? It's enough to enter the history of the article and the talk page to see who wants a compromise, and who not. YMB references what he says. He to doesn't agree with many things in the article, but unlike you he is mature enough to use the talk page for it, and he is mature enough to respect a concensus. And that's all after I entered every claim you wanted to enter the article! You were given respect - give respect. Everyone can see what's going on by entering the talk page and the history. The funny thing is, the concensus version really was achieved. Biophys has nothing to add, he just removes what the other user said, and that's the only problem. Kostan1 (talk) 11:36, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

Sure, I worked towards the compromise, please see my evidence (links) provided above. it is you who do not work towards a compromise. Remember, I understand exactly what you and others are doing and why. Do you think I care so much about human rights in the Soviet Union? If this continue, I am going to simply switch to other topics, such as Russian-Georgian war. So far I only commented at talk page...Biophys (talk) 13:28, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

You try to thread? Hhh funny. And why did i tell you that? Because you simply ignored the talk page, you entered controversial edits, while the other user used the talk page. So I explained you or do it in a civil way, or don't do it at all. I entered every claim you wanted to enter, use the talk page. Kostan1 (talk) 14:12, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

Kostan1, no, I did not try to "thread" as you said. You suggested that I should "use the door" (see your edit summary in my last diff above). Well, I am ready to take your offer and switch to other subjects. Do not you see that I am ready to cooperate?Biophys (talk) 14:56, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

That wasn't said seriously. I wont insist, if you want, leave, but I think it would be nicer that you write all the edits you want to do on the discussion page, without entering to the text, or say what you don't like there. You know all you wanted to enter entered. The other user for the concensus and the discussion stoped removing what you added, and used the talk page to talk about what he want's do to. Do the same, you will be surprised how fine it works. If you'll enter the other users talk page, I don't know if you know Russian but i spoke to him much rudely then to you to explaine we need a compromise, it's nothing personal. Kostan1 (talk) 15:42, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

"That wasn't said seriously". No man, you are deadly serious as clear from your actions. The only thing you are doing are reverts of my edits in article Human rights in the Soviet Union. Fine, I will pay more attention to other subjects.Biophys (talk) 01:36, 24 August 2008 (UTC)

I used your version as the base version, I entered all information you wanted. The reason I revert you know is because you simply delete what another user added, and that is rude. Use the talk page to talk about what you don't like, you rudely revert without explanations. Kostan1 (talk) 11:17, 24 August 2008 (UTC)

In fact, your reverted this article to my own older version, without adding anything new on your part. I worked toward a compromise, but you reverted my compromise version.Biophys (talk) 16:13, 24 August 2008 (UTC)

How do you improve the article when you delete referenced material by the other user? How is that working towards a compromise? If i revert to simply "your previous version", how is it possible that in the version I there is also the material added by the other user, you try to delete? I guess Wikipedia is broken. Kostan1 (talk) 21:53, 24 August 2008 (UTC)

Biophys, I think it is wrong. You have wealth of information on the Human Rights in USSR topic and your editing helps. On the other hand it is contentious topic with many possible valid points of view. So please engage in the article talk page discussions rather than edit war. It is easier to revert than to discuss but in the long run finding compromises and discussions work better Alex Bakharev (talk) 10:51, 24 August 2008 (UTC)

I'm telling you, just look at the talk page of the article and at the history page. I entered every thing he wanted to add. He just ignores discussion right now. He deleted a referenced paragraph by another user saying it is "POV". Kostan1 (talk) 11:20, 24 August 2008 (UTC)

By the way, the other user there even though he doesn't like many things in the article, and even thought Biophys's version was chosen as the one we worked with, even though all that he respected it and accepted compromise and concensus. I would except Biophys to be mature like him. Kostan1 (talk) 11:24, 24 August 2008 (UTC)

Alex, I certainly agree with you. Moreover, that is exactly what I did: "engage in the article talk page" (see the diff above), and "finding compromises" (see another diff, and I can easily provide more). Unfortunately all my edits were blindly reverted (see another diff). This made any further productive work with this article impossible. Edit warring is not the way to create good articles and improve their content. Biophys (talk) 16:13, 24 August 2008 (UTC)

Wait! You want to tell me you haven't deleted referenced paragraphs added by the other user? You want to tell me you didn't use the excuse "i don't have time right now to explaine"? You want to tell me you didn't ignore the points I summarizeed for you the other user wrote to you? That's not even funny anymore. Kostan1 (talk) 21:53, 24 August 2008 (UTC)

Biophys is the most frustrating user I have seen on Wikipedia. He does not know what objectivity means, clings to questionable sources and ignores those that are more credible, avoids discussions, and reverts entire edits if he does not like one thing. We both tried to explain to him numerous times what exactly to discuss and settle, but he just does not want to continue the discussion. -YMB29 (talk) 18:45, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

RDX

Are such tangentially relevant remarks helpful? Colchicum (talk) 20:23, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

I mean I am not good in communicating with hot-tempered people, so could you please try to persuade her to move this stuff to RDX? Colchicum (talk) 20:31, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

Moved to the article talk page Alex Bakharev (talk) 00:45, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

Moscow Bombings edit

Thanks for your work. It is nice to know that not everyone is influenced by the views of Mr Berezovsky and his colleagues.
Hope my new edits to the motives and explosives section are to your liking.
I think more note of the "terrorist" angle should be placed near the top of the article - someone glancing at it would be left with the impression that the bombings were most likely the result of Russian actions, rather than this being a possible, unproven, cause.
What say you.
Maria- x - —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mariya Oktyabrskaya (talk • contribs) 09:36, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

Noticeboard

Hi Alex. Do you have any idea what happened to Azerbaijan noticeboard? All the recent announcements are displayed as "la by User", while when I tried to edit the text it seems to be Ok. I think the problem might be related to the wiki software, which does not recognize la template. What do you think? Thanks. Regards, Grandmaster (talk) 06:04, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

• It looks like Wikimedia software does not work correctly if the number of templates is above some value. It appears that a bot created a lot of Azery geostubs recently and as the result my bot results become two long for the WMF. I have manually archieved most of the bot search results and the problem seems to disappear Alex Bakharev (talk) 07:28, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

  Thanks, problem fixed. Grandmaster (talk) 05:32, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

A favour to ask

Dear Alex,

I am preparing to begin a request for adminship. Another admin has agreed to nominate me, but I believe having co-nominator(s) would be better for me at this point. I was wondering if you can help me in this endeavor. Thanks for your help! Arbiteroftruth (talk) 07:54, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

• Usually I feel comfortable to nominate somebody for RFA if only if I have more common Wikipedia work than we had yet. I guess this is because we mostly work on different projects. I am sure there are plenty of people who know you quite well and will be happy to nominate you. If there are reasons it should be me who nominates you then please share them (maybe use Email if there are something private there) Alex Bakharev (talk) 10:35, 24 August 2008 (UTC)

Signpost updated for July 28, August 9, 11 and 18, 2008.

Sorry I haven't been sending this over the past few weeks. Ralbot (talk) 05:27, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

The Wikipedia Signpost Weekly Delivery

Volume 4, Issue 31	28 July 2008	About the Signpost

Wikimania 2008 wrap-up	WikiWorld: "Terry Gross"
News and notes: Unblocked in China	Dispatches: Find reliable sources online
WikiProject Report: Military history	Features and admins
Bugs, Repairs, and Internal Operational News	The Report on Lengthy Litigation

Volume 4, Issue 32	9 August 2008	About the Signpost

Anthrax suspect reportedly edit-warred on Wikipedia	WikiWorld: "Fall Out Boy"
Dispatches: Style guide and policy changes, July	WikiProject Report: WikiProject New York State routes
Features and admins	Bugs, Repairs, and Internal Operational News
The Report on Lengthy Litigation

Volume 4, Issue 33	11 August 2008	About the Signpost

Study: Wikipedia's growth may indicate unlimited potential	Board of Trustees fills Nominating Committee for new members
Greenspun illustration project moves to first phase	WikiWorld: "George Stroumboulopoulos"
News and notes: Wikipedian dies	Dispatches: Reviewing free images
Features and admins	Bugs, Repairs, and Internal Operational News
The Report on Lengthy Litigation

Volume 4, Issue 34	18 August 2008	About the Signpost

From the editor: Help wanted
WikiWorld: "Cashew"	Dispatches: Choosing Today's Featured Article
Features and admins	Bugs, Repairs, and Internal Operational News
The Report on Lengthy Litigation

You are receiving this message because you have signed up for the Signpost spamlist. If you wish to stop receiving these messages, simply remove your name from the list. Ralbot (talk) 05:27, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

Editor requesting unblock might be a sock

Hello Alex. User talk:Dogdart is requesting unblock. His account was created today, and he is caught in the autoblock of User:Newcrewforu. This might be too simple, but can he be indef blocked as a sock of Newcrewforu? I was going to decline his unblock, but realize that I'm out of my depth. Maybe you want to discuss the matter with him? Just an idea, EdJohnston (talk) 05:49, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

I have cleaned the autoblock. Lets assume WP:AGF Alex Bakharev (talk) 06:01, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

WP:OWN

First let me say, I have tried to generalise this comment, rather than pointing the finger at individuals.
I'm having a bit of trouble with an editor, who, in my personal opinion, seems to be setting himself up as the arbiter and editor-in-chief of a page. The well sourced material I provide is dismissed as 'absurd', and only grudgingly accepted after a battle, and even then is only permitted by the other editor in a subordinate position, sometimes with additional unsourced qualifying remarks from that editor.
how should I best proceed?
I am inclined to just edit BIG, but I know that will result in an edit war
Any help or advice would be appreciated
Maria - x - Mariya Oktyabrskaya (talk) 06:44, 24 August 2008 (UTC)

Well if we have a contentious article there the material is a result of some compromise then some sort of a reluctance to have changes (especially already discussed and rejected) in the text. There is such thing as WP:UNDUE - text that gives an undue weight to a marginal theory might be rejected even if properly sourced. I would start from discussions on the talk page of the article. You may want to increase the number of participants by filing an article WP:RFC. If the problem affects many articles I would start a User WP:RFC or other dispute resolution measures. Alex Bakharev (talk) 10:29, 24 August 2008 (UTC)

Wonderful. That's just what I needed to know. A WP:RFC seems like a great place to start. The WP:UNDUE sounds like an idea I will be moving with, as well. The Article I am thinking about seems to treat one theory from a few sources with a particularly high regard (despite other sources critising the unbalanced nature of the sources), and seems to treat all other sources and theories as very minor, and to be included, grudgingly, only for completeness, and even then with unsourced qualifiers added. Mariyx - x - Mariya Oktyabrskaya (talk) 14:33, 24 August 2008 (UTC)

Restructuring of Russian Apartment Bombings page

We are currently discussing this. Perhaps you would like to join us, as you have suggested an interest before. Mariya - x - Mariya Oktyabrskaya (talk) 19:14, 24 August 2008 (UTC)

UPA article

I would like to provide some citation: Because your WP:V and your WP:NOR are currently not polluting the article, such efforts are not necessary. I guess you have been caught being dishonest too often for that .Faustian (talk) 14:29, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

If you choose to be disruptive you will be reverted by the community of editors 12:39, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

Actually your disruptions have been reverted by many editors, I have just been the most active one. If you choose to resume being disruptive the reaction will be the same. Faustian (talk) 16:04, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

So – please advice – does such edit [5] can be nominated as disruptions? I replace existed text with exact citation and remove unreferenced claims in the lead. Per WP:NPOV - WP:UNDEU I list both POV vision of scholars and provide names and date of works Jo0doe (talk) 08:25, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

He added a dubious tag to a figure taken from a RS (Magocsi) (see comments about his work[6], removed info the same month as it was tagged for a source, removed other info that was sourced and was not controversial (which fought a guerrilla war during the Second World War and in the decade afterwards . OUN declared its primary purpose was to protect the interests of the Ukrainian population, starting out as a resistance group that grew into a guerrilla army. ), and repeated info from another section (German oppressors and supplied by them with arms and ammunitions from the beginning of the 1944.). While doing so he also added language that is awkward and more difficult to read. It is unfortunate that Jo0doe has chosen to resume his disruptive edits and low-level edit-warring.Faustian (talk) 13:36, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

Per WP:Honest I add tag to construction Estimates of armed personnel at various times ranged from 15,000 - 100,000 see here [7]Jo0doe (talk) 16:09, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

Only Magocsi and OUN propaganda claim - see first chapter ofWP:Fringe is Ukrainian) Українська Повстанська Армія - Історія нескорених - Львів, 2007 not RS and not NPOV per WP. I remove OR per listed issues[8] [9]

[10]

So here clear Breaching WP:NPOV - WP:UNDUE Jo0doe (talk) 15:57, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

Magosci is not a fringe theory. His book is published by University of Toronto Press and he is on staff at U of T after having studied at Harvard. He meets all criteria for RS. Tagging info referenced from his book as "dubious" is wrong and will be reverted. There is nothiong dishonest about the infobox summarizing that estimates of UPA strnegth vary from 15,000-100,00 because various RS give estimates within that range. The info removed is not controversial - it sttates that UPA grew into a guerilla army. Jo0doe is just being disruptive as usually, unfortunately.Faustian (talk) 18:10, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

I never mentioned what Magoci opinions is fringe theory (while many scholars did). I concerned to specific figure in his 1996 work (while he have 2007 work). If carefully read scholar comment on Magocsi's books – “rather popular character of this publication, addressing not so much an academic readership as a broad public” and for specific time period “Obviously with Magocsi this historical fact is a "blank spot," too” – so It’s not good idea to give such emphasis to “blank spot” in science article. And, once again, does anyone else listed this figure? See first chapter of WP:Fringe for this issue. While sentence is clear mislead – as far as you can read at Academy of Sciences of Ukraine work what in spring 1946 UPA at Ukraine numbered 300 person While I would be great to see RS for tagged sentence “which fought a guerrilla war during the Second World War and in the decade afterwards”. Thanks to WP we know what Second World War in Europe started September, 1 1939 and ends May 8(9 Moscow time) 1945. So here is clear hoax in the lead - because UPA/OUN(B) not exist before March 20 1943 Order of it formation, and was dismissed (more formally because it actually does not exist as military formation) September 1949. I hope it’s easy to assess what “decade afterwards” (1945) gives 1955.

Here I would like to point the attention of administrator what user:Faustian resume his disruptive edits and low-level edit-warring at UPA article and engaged in personal attack and stonewalling – [11] [12] [13] [14] [15]:

I hope his “Yes” does not referred to Latin phrase.

quod liced Jovi non liced bovi?Jo0doe (talk) 16:15, 27 August 2008 (UTC) Yes, mentioning the biography of every source is unwarranted. …If you continue to try to clutter the article with irrelevant information, or awkward English, you will continue to be reverted by me or by someone else.Faustian (talk) 17:12, 27 August 2008 (UTC) Insulting me as OR so your claims are just Original Research as usual.Faustian (talk) 17:14, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

Here I would like to point the attention of administrator what user:Faustian resume his disruptive edits and low-level edit-warring – as it happened over last half year. I hope, dear administrator, you’ll be able to advice me a solution regarding this specific issue in favor of WP:reliability WP:NPOV and to protect WP from WP:Fringe – namely

postwar Ukrainian emigration began to redefine its politics. It downplayed as much as possible the cooperation between the Ukrainian nationalist parties and the Germans and emphasized instead how Ukrainian nationalists fought both the Germans and the Soviets and how the Ukrainian nation suffered enormously at the hands of both. Lebed's group published document collections that doctored historical texts to eliminate pro-German and antisemitic statements.[33] Lebed left his papers to the Harvard Ukrainian Research Institute.

Thank you for your advice in advanceJo0doe (talk) 07:42, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

Your disruptive edits have been reverted by multiple people, including an obvious non-Ukrainian nationalist such as kuban kazak.Faustian (talk) 14:13, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

WP:Honest - see article history page kuban kazak rv only once and a long time ago - while limited group of editors with collaborative effort trace my edits - I even don't spoke about numerous IP edits Jo0doe (talk) 15:39, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

"Collaborative effort?" It's just you vs. everyone else.Faustian (talk) 15:48, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

WP:Honest - see Statistics

Edit statistics of UPA from January 26, 2008
Faustian – 279 edits
John0Doe – 191 edits
Bobbanie – 111 edits
Bandurist – 47 edits
Kuban Kazak 34 edits

Rv of John0Doe edits (started immediately slow edit warring since beginning of February 2008) February: Faustian – more then 10 rv (allegedly “OR” story)
March - “mischief story” – rv: 2 RV by IP 90.2.27.862; 2 Rv by Bobbanie 1 Rv by Ruirik – rest – more then 20 – Faustian
April: 2 IP rv - 90.35.25.205 83.199.45.7 5 Bandurist RV 2 Bobbanie (per no massive changes) 5 by Faustian
May : 11 Rv by Bandurist 3 Rv by Faustian 2 IP rv 90.2.92.101 81.249.80.149 1 Kuban Kazak
June: 2 by Faustian 2 by IP 2 by Bandirist 1 by Bobbanie Article blocked
July – no edits by John0Doe
August: 5 Rv by Faustian 1 rv by Bandurist

• A conclusion:posed “group of editor”: limited to Faustian IP anonims, and 2 Editor which asked by him for such rv (see their talk page) – so I assume such as cooperative personal attack (as for instance user:Bandurist edits generally intended for revert (rv/edits ratio) rather something else. Thank you for your assistance in preventing such cooperative personal attack at my edits at this and rest article which visited by “members of cooperative” only for rv my edits .Jo0doe (talk) 17:44, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for pointing out that the majority of the main contributors to that article have to waste their time reverting your disruptive edits, insertion of OR, insertion of irrelevent information (such as your repeated insertion into the article of the fact that an author of a peer-reviewed journal article is a "director of Bering Ltd."), and poor English. Indeed, we see that you have been reverted by me, Bobbanie, Riurik, Bandurist, some anonymous address, and Kuban Kazak. I've done it the most, because I am the most active in general. Looking at the stats, we see that from April to August (I will leave out February and March because you didn't offer specific figures for me) I have reverted you 15 times, Bobannie has reverted you 5 times, Bandurist has reverted you 19 times, Anonymous IP's have reverted you 4 times, and Kuban Kazak has reverted you once. I would note that there is a similar phenomenon of your edits against everyone else on the Holodomor article. This sort of antagonistic way of editting is a pattern for you; it is certainly not a pattern for me.

As for your accusation about "cooperative personal attacks" - please provide the links to evidence of these accusations. I will note that when you chose to be constructive a few weeks ago there was some good work done on this article, by you among others: [16]. This illustrates how the presence of disruptive behavior harms the effort of positive contribution. Hopefully you will make positive choices in the future.Faustian (talk) 18:34, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

WP:Honest – above not listed other contributors (but not editor) to article (likeuser:Lysy which have not reverted any of my edits; allegedly insulting me OR lasted without ends from the beginning of my edits from sole editor (while – despite the numerous please to prove so (OR)– he refuse to do so); under “repeated” here list only one instance of listing a fact [17] of WP:Fringe including into article by sole editor. So noting my English level reflect the civility of author. As regrds Bobbanie reverts: based upon his own filling regarding army vs military formation [18] [19] , while his attempts to “O14-USSR” mistake is awful breaching the WP reliability and clearly unknown dislike of major well referenced edits, while actually – he is not very familiar with article topic [20] [21] . Rurik has only 7 (seven) edits during mentioned period (February till August )– and 1 rv in March. More then 45 rv from February till August (while I’m not suspend my edit for 2.5 months) – You are a sole champion here. While the pattern of [user:Bandurist]] it’s actually look similar – no RS contribution (inserting of Українська Повстанська Армія - Історія нескорених - Львів, 2007) – which at least was removed from article even without my participation (while I did it as many time as such hoaxes were inserted – there is the origin of 11 Bandurist edits). See my user page vandalism example - [22]

As regards to cooperative actions in edited by me article – see [23] [24] – so copy-pasting, blanking and edit warring became a tradition for group of editors while no traced of good faith hardly to trace – articles simply used to put users in misconceptions by OR, twisting the source text and removal of undesired info.

Indeed very interesting appearance of user:Faustian at Holdomor article – only from May 2008 [25] [26] [27] [28]. While not for contribution – but for personal attack and for hidden vandalism. [29] which lasted even longer – but interesting – not contributions traced – just a disruptive edits and protecting disinformation from removal as also a provocative comments and stonewalling at talk page [30] – see books claims [31].

I hope administrator will be able to provide a solution to prevent descriptive edits and personal attack. Thank youJo0doe (talk) 07:22, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

• "Vandalism" on the user page was almost certainly an honest mistake - just misplacing comments intended for the talk page. It happens all the time. I am not sure I could help with the UPA article, administrators are not suppose to have special powers in the context disputes and I am not an expert on UPA. I would try to review your argument over weekend but maybe it would be better to start an WP:RFC or other forms of WP:DR? Alex Bakharev (talk) 08:01, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

With 2 different time "mistake" - Let it be. - Attempt of WP:RFC was made some times ago by Bobbamie - noone responded. I expect similar conduct Jo0doe (talk) 08:15, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

• I would like to draw you attention to bad faith in editing of users cooperative –

[32] – blanking justified by claim for non existed consensus. [33] blanking justified by claim for non existed discussion [34] Stonewalling and refusal to provide any arguments [35] – despite the clear Hoax like “UPA appeal poster” [36] user attempted to spammed the talk page without providing any clear pro- or counter- arguments. No contribution and preventing f other editors contributions. Jo0doe (talk) 09:33, 31 August 2008 (UTC)

Hmmm. On the article Proclamation of Ukrainian Independence we have Jo0doe engaged in another edit war. This time another editor, User:Narking, unconnected to me or other articles has been forced to clean up the mess :[37]. Either there is a problem with everyone else out there or something is wrong with Jo0doe approach. Time for some self-reflection?Faustian (talk) 13:12, 31 August 2008 (UTC)

WP:Honest – see user concern here [38] – and actually origin of edit war – [39] – interesting no user:John0doe appeared So in fact it’s once again bad faith approach on article editing – removal undesired information and playing around with ref. See user:Faustian habit of discussion – [40]

Where is it claimed in the infobox that UPA was fighting until 1956?Faustian (talk) 03

16, 31 August 2008 (UTC)

and see infobox at article itself UPA. So may be would be better to define persons which provoked an edit warring and apply bad faith to their edits?Jo0doe (talk) 06:34, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

The infobox states "Active 1943-1949 (official); fighting until 1956". Which accurately and briefly summarized what the article states, that UPA was officuially disbanded in 1949 while some reorganized units continued fighting until 1956, the last UPA commander captured in 1954, etc. In terms of defining "which provoked an edit warring and apply bad faith to their edits", clearly and unfortunately that person has been you, as is seen on every article you touch.Faustian (talk) 12:23, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

WP:Honest – Article does not state any similar info UPA and OUN underground it's not a same things. As regards Kuk – as he possess the post of OUN and UHVR leader and as such he became a Chairman of Main Command (Golovna Komanda) of UPA but not last UPA Commander as erroneously assume some of publicist s– as for instance Shukevich became a Chairmen of Main Command of UPA (Golova Verkhovnoi Komandy) at August 1943 while D.Klyachkivskyy remains UPA Commander until January 1944. While such info can not be obtained from Toronto researchers and Google search – it required a library visit.

Rather interesting = but edit warring started when cooperative of editor find info which does not match their believe

I believe, was writing about Western Ukraine and so within that context "western Ukrainian people" seems appropriate. .Faustian (talk) 03

46, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

if you try disrupting the article again you'll just be reverted again.Faustian (talk) 12

30, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

– so any methods are good –see glaring example above and recent events here [41] – interesting no claimed discussion exist. Just empty sentences – no reasonable reply on every issue and reason of blanking [42]

So, dear admin – any solution for cooperative of editor which used WP to promote WP:Fringe about criminal formation responsible for sadistic extermination (posed above as “fighting”) of more then 100.000 innocent civilians (predominantly women and children and old aged persons) in 1943-46? Jo0doe (talk) 15:44, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

I'm not involved in reverting you on this article[43], so why bring it up here? More clutter? Thanks for sharing your POV about UPA, though.Faustian (talk) 05:11, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

A Cooperative of editors issue. You mean Poles, Jews, Germans and Ukrainian scholars conclutionsJo0doe (talk) 07:49, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

Kostan1

Hi, Alex! Just wanted to make sure about this. How do you expect him to contribute when he's indef blocked? Or did you mean on his talk page? Cheers,—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); 12:41, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

• I meant on the talk page. Also I suppose his friends and acquaintances keep the talk page in their watchlist Alex Bakharev (talk) 12:46, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

Great Purge

Hi Alex, while I disagree with your reversion, I will not revert back since you know my view on the matter and I don't need to edit the page to make that clear. The talk page and the edit summary do not use the word "source" in the sense you described in the undoing edit. The problem with the inclusion of the image, as I stated, was the definite slant the source of the image has. If the image is being used as a decoration or an illustration (or something, point being that its a peripheral item) ideally it should not be displaying a particular view on the subject.

If you choose to reply can you reply on this page please? I am using a public IP (see my IP page)...

Thanks, 130.195.5.7 (talk) 03:48, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

Well, the image seems to show a mainstream opinion. Do not see any problem. Images supporting other opinions are welcome (at least as far as I am concerned) Alex Bakharev (talk) 12:39, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

User:Grey Fox-9589 aka User:Pietervhuis

Account was first used 3 days after User:Pietervhuis stopped editing and blanked his userpage after he was blocked for breaking the 3RR rule for the 6th time. He has a very similar pattern of edits as User:Pietervhuis (War In South Ossetia, Guerrilla phase of the Second Chechen War (2008), Second Chechen war, Russian Apartment bombings, Vietnam War, Shamil Basayev, Chechen Republic of Ichkeria) as anyone can see [44][45]. He knew that Moreschi nominated me for 1RR restriction which was months ago despite first editing a little more than a week ago[46].

Pietervhuis created this account to avoid scrutiny from his block log, which now stands at 6 blocks. Can you annotate Grey Fox-9589's block log (by blocking him for one second, autoblock disabled) to include links to the block log of his prior account consistent with what User:Moreschi did here[47].--Miyokan (talk) 06:43, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

Whoever I am is none of your business Miyokan and I advice you to stop stalking me. Surprisingly you have had an old account yourself with many past blocks on it.[48] Anyway, a user has the Right to Vanish as well as the right to create a new account. User:Pietervhuis is an inactive account and my own account User:Grey Fox-9589 isn't used for disruptive editing. If I have previous blocks an admin would easily see it anyway so there's no secrecy. Grey Fox (talk) 11:14, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

Miyokan, you know my stance on the issue when we discussed with Moreschi and Folantin the similar problem about Berkunt user. I have observed many novices that start from accumulating block logs for edit warring, violations of copyright etc. They often also give up significant personal information they would rather not make public. Thus, I feel everybody who does not have outstanding blocks, editing restrictions, etc. has the right to silently change their account name without others outing them. On the other hand, I remember Moreschi having different opinion. Maybe it is interesting to ask if he still holds it. Alex Bakharev (talk) 12:37, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

Grey Fox-9589 does seem to be making a VERY large number of edits to a number of similar, related pages, and NOTHING ELSE. Grey Fox-9589 seems to have quite a bit of familiarity with the less obvoius rules of Wikipedia, as well (judging from the edit summaries). Either an expert in a particular subject area has sat down, read Wikipedia's policies thoroughly, or this user has edited the pages he/she is altering before.
Looks a bit convenient.
Surely I'm not the only user who only has one account?
Mariya Oktyabrskaya (talk) 16:01, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

This is not prohibited, as explained at length above. He has not been disruptive and has not evaded a block, unlike some others here. Please stop trolling. Colchicum (talk) 17:49, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

And this is certainly not warranted. Calm down, please. Colchicum (talk) 17:52, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

Thank you, if what Pietervhuis did is allowed then that is all I needed to know.--Miyokan (talk) 06:23, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

Must remember WP:AGF. Must remember WP:AGF. Must remember WP:AGF. Must remember WP:AGF. Must remember WP:AGF. Must remember WP:AGF...etc. etc. Sorry all, especially Grey Fox-9589. Mariya - x - Mariya Oktyabrskaya (talk) 19:13, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

The problem with Wikipedia policies and even goals is that they contradict each other. Confronting sockpuppeting and conflicts of interest contradicts protecting user privacy and the right to vanish. The result is that individual administrators can have different approach in complicated situations like this. If the approach of an admin is very unusual he or she will eventually be desysopped. I would not act if either Miyokan or Petervhius make a fresh start. Somebody else might. Will either of us desysopped for this? I do not think so. Each individual case might be different. The old accounts might generate different amount of disruption, the amount of personally-identified info in the old name might be different, etc. On the other hand, all sorts of favoritism might be possible. Theoretically, since we have almost 2000 admins with different sets of views the result should be sort of averaged to be fair Alex Bakharev (talk) 22:07, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

Map of Georgia

Alex, which rationale motivates you to treat Georgia differently than Serbia and Cyprus. Or, do you disagree with the consensus the respective authors have found there? In any case, you would do better to abstain the edit war on the main article and contribute on the talk page instead. Tomeasy _{T C} 07:40, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

• I did not participated in the editing of Serbia and Cyprus and I indeed disagree with the current state of affairs there. If some states recognized a country in the borders different from the others then both variants should be visible as in Marokko for example or People's Republic of China. For Serbia it is even more true then for Georgia Alex Bakharev (talk) 07:49, 29 August 2008 (UTC)
  • I have edited Serbia accordingly. Alex Bakharev (talk) 08:13, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

Image speedy deletion assistance

Image Ulica w Charkowie 1932.jpg deleted accrodingly [49] again appeared at commons under name Jo0doe (talk) 08:27, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

• To be honest, I am not sure about the photograph copyright status. The previous IfD rejected the idea that the image is covered by the exception to the German copyright law. If this is Ukraine, 1932, then usage of the Ukrainian copyright law seems to be grounded and it makes the photo to be public domain. Unless the photograph is misattributed I do not see copyright problems here Alex Bakharev (talk) 08:40, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

So [50] arguments of parties is dobtfull.??? Ukrainian copyright law seems irrelevant to apply - as far as for author not UkrainianJo0doe (talk) 14:40, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

That conversation lumped this photograph from 1932 with those from 1940+. It's more than 70 years from 1932.Faustian (talk) 16:19, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

Photo belongs to Nazi propaganda instition publications - thus it's not more than 70 years Jo0doe (talk) 09:17, 31 August 2008 (UTC)

Proof?Faustian (talk) 05:05, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

New announcment board question

Hello, please keep in mind that I have absolutely no idea what I am talking about. If this question is quite ridiculous keep that in mind.

It appears that your new article bot is the updater of the Portal:Ukraine/New article announcements 2. Lately, it seems that this page is becoming cluttered with geography stub articles created by a different bot (Kotbot). This is making everything difficult. Please, please tell me there is a way to get these Kotbot stubs not to appear on the Ukraine article board? Or is this just wishful thinking on my part? Ostap 06:44, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

• It seems to be a new fashion to automatically generate articles by bots using some database. It usually creates a lot of stubs in a couple of days and then stops. This kotbot generated a lot of Polish geostubs and some of them leaked to the Ukraine board. As the last of bot-generated articles is of 26 August they should be archived soon anyway. In the long run I am thinking of not reporting all the articles created by the users whose name ends with bot. Alex Bakharev (talk) 02:30, 31 August 2008 (UTC)

Moreschi's talk page

Looks at the moment as though you wrote an edit (according to the history) with my signature. Doug Weller (talk) 07:09, 31 August 2008 (UTC)

• I know. I had to delete a few revisions per WP:BLP. Sorry about it. The text has your signature anyway Alex Bakharev (talk) 07:26, 31 August 2008 (UTC)

I thought it might be that, I just wasn't sure. Thanks for the explanation. Doug Weller (talk) 13:27, 31 August 2008 (UTC)

Picture

Is it possible to transfer this to Commons? Colchicum (talk) 13:40, 31 August 2008 (UTC)

• Erledigt Alex Bakharev (talk) 22:09, 31 August 2008 (UTC)
  • Thanks! Colchicum (talk) 22:11, 31 August 2008 (UTC)
  • By the way, could you please delete the misleading interwikis in Russian Wikipedia? However, I am not sure that this will work if the link is left in other wikis. I have no idea how to stop the bots. Colchicum (talk) 22:18, 31 August 2008 (UTC)
    • I have removed the iw in ruwiki. Don't know if it stay. BTW why could not you do it yourself, do you have problems editing ruwiki? Alex Bakharev (talk) 23:16, 31 August 2008 (UTC)

Scholars work review by WP:editor

A work by National Academy of Science of Ukraine [51] recently received in depth review by WP:Editor.[52]

Sorry, number of authors doesn't equal reliability. Number of pages also doesn't equal reliability, either. But Burds obtained his Ph.D. in History from one of the top univeristies in the world (Yale) and is currently involved with the number one university (Harvard). The guys at the Institute of History are from unknown universities and working at a place with an international reputation far worse than that of Yale and Harvard. I don't know al their backgrounds, altrhough one (Kulchitsky) was a former ideologue for the Ukrainian Communist party. As I've already taught you, the Universiy of Toronto (Magocsi) is also a top world university (#18 or #24, depending on the ranking). The Institute of History's authors aren't affiliated with any university in the top 500. While number of pages and number of authors might impress you, this quantity over quality approach doesn't seem to impress anyone else.Faustian (talk) 05:23, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

Can we add this stuff to as a best stonewalling exampleJo0doe (talk) 07:50, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

Possible sock of Captain Obvious and his crime-fighting dog

Hi Alex Bakharev, I saw you had blocked Obvious recently. I have suspected based on choice of topics and general attitude that before creating the Obvious account this individual was editing as User_talk:84.234.60.154. Now I'm even more convinced.

• The IP stopped editing after May 24, 2008.
• Obvious account was created May 25, 2008.
• Obvious was blocked indefinitely by you on August 27, 2008
• The IP resumed editing on August 29, 2008.

Given the similarity of style, topics, and the dates, I think there may be enough evidence to make a sock-puppet connection here. Would you mind looking into it?--Stor stark7 ^Speak 09:35, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

• Yes, it is him. Blocked Alex Bakharev (talk) 09:50, 2 September 2008 (UTC)