I will have a look, however, my knowledge on this subject is very limited. This is the first time I hear about this event. I will try to contribute as much as I can.--Hillock6502:01, 5 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Ukrainian losses in WW2
Do you know what proportion of Soviet Union's losses in civilian and military lives were Ukrainians ? I would be thankfull for information about that or even better about information about losses along ethnic lines in WW2 of Soviet Union. Looking at your edits, you seem like a person that could know this or know a source for that.
--Molobo03:17, 5 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
EB is the best source for this kind of information. This is what it states: "Some five to seven million people perished. Even with the return of evacuees from the east and the repatriation of forced labourers from Germany, Ukraine's estimated population of 36 million in 1947 was almost five million less than before the war."[1]. Hope this helps. --Hillock6504:07, 5 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Kulchytsky does not provide the calculation but presents the conclusion that Ukraine lost 8 mln, the second largest number per country in absolute deaths (after Russia). Ukraine is also second (after Poland) by percentage of the population that perished (19.1 % and 19.6 % , respectively). Poland was fourth (after Germany) by an absolute number of deaths. Next is Belarus, according to Kulchytsky. HTH, --Irpen05:02, 5 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Orphaned non-free media (Image:1162825302.jpg)
Thanks for uploading Image:1162825302.jpg. The media description page currently specifies that it is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, it is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the media was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that media for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).
If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that all non-free media not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. BetacommandBot14:07, 9 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
RfC Kyiv
Hello Hillock65. I noticed your talk with Horlo a while ago and was struck by your positive tone. Would you have time to apply the same thoughtful guidance to his RfC Kyiv [[2]]?
I realize that I haven't introduced myself properly nor do I have an extensive history on Wiki but time will establish this. Thank you for your time. Eduvalko02:12, 14 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Hello. I noticed the discussion about images on the Ukrainians page. I was disturbed that one of the users was repeatedly making racist remarks, and I saw that he has been blocked before for racism. Is there a way to report this behavior? Thanks for your time, Ostap22:24, 16 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I know who you are talking about, unfortunately it is not that easy. From what I've seen it is not enough for a block at the moment. I already reported him once and will do it again only if there is concrete evidence of outrageous behavior. Until then the best thing to do is not to get involved in discussions with him. If you need my help, please don't hesitate. Hillock6501:06, 17 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks that was very helpful. I have made some changes to the article in an attempt to represent different views on the subject. For the moment I will wait, I don't want to make an impression that I am monopolizing it. But feel free to add anything you find relevant per WP:BOLD. Thanks again for the literature. --Hillock6521:58, 20 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
An equally freindly reminder
I am quite fascinated, that whenever I edit an article, you immediately develop an interest for it. For example the deletion of Estophobia if you remember. I just hope that you keep in mind of a WP:STALK policy. Thanks for the reminder of 3RR, but if you look, they were not as reverts, as attempts to merge and expand on the sections. Happy editing.--Kuban Cossack13:11, 21 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, by no means. Apart from trying to hide the voluminous treacherous past of the Kuban Cossacks, I have no interest in you. If you look at the edits, I developed an interest in Kuban Cossacks without you actually editing there. So the bougus WP:STALK claim is just that - an attempt to prevent me from editing the articles, you believe you own (WP:OWN). --Hillock6513:16, 21 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Voluminous past? I wrote the article from scratch for your information. I will not deny there is a lot of work to do. Of course you can claim no interest in my edits to articles, which you begin to edit within a day after I make one... but if it does develop into a pattern, it will be reported. So please make contributions, though remember about a WP:POINT when making them, it will make consensus a lot easier to achieve. All the best. --Kuban Cossack13:24, 21 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Please support your ludicrous accusations with facts, and above all please try to use the discussion page for discussions and not my talk page. I find these very distracting. --Hillock6513:29, 21 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I know we do not have the best feelings towards each other, but I do feel it is possible to work with you, and I think there is an opportunity here: User:Kuban kazak/Ukrainian architecture. Please have a look there, the article is young and needs a lot more input into it. However I feel if everybody adds something it is an easily FA status within reach. --Kuban Cossack19:09, 15 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Well, I am truly flattered, thank you. Unfortunately, I don't edit much in English WP, I only come here sporadically. I do most on my edits in Ukrainian WP. I might offer my thoughts later, though. Thanks. --Hillock6519:22, 15 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
question
Hello, do you have any interest in perhaps writing an article about historical and modern Anti-Ukrainian sentiment? I would like to see this article be written, but I would need help. Also, do you think such an article would last on this encyclopedia? Thanks, Ostap05:00, 31 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Well, in fact I would. There is one in Ukrainian wiki. I wrote 90% of it, tell me what you think about it and what needs to be improved. I don't think it can be just translated here, it needs to be adapted, changed. Even the Ukrainian version needs some improvement, unfortunately I was practically the only one, who contributed to it apart from never-ending complaints. Presently it is not a complaint board like Russophobia, but it needs improvement and constructive, positive criticism. We should start there. As for the, Anti-Ukrainian sentiment, you should prepare yourself for a major fight (there are plenty of those who would fight tooth and nail to get rid of it) — unless we have a solid material, it is not worth the trouble and the aggravation. --Hillock6505:41, 31 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I too would like to join the discussion. I actually started writting an article but have it in word because I expect difficulties. Currently researching materials.
So far, there is no discussion going on. Please see the Ukrainian article. I suggest you move it in your user's subpage, so it can be ammended and discussed by all interested parties.
I don't have too much time this evening, but will have a look. In regards to material being destroyed — this is one of the reasons why I don't write articles here. I receive much more satisfaction working in Uk wiki. I will try to offer my thought on those two articles. You forgot to mention the Petliura article — there his criminal convictions are erased but Legion of Honour decoration is left. Tedious and never-ending. --Hillock6522:17, 8 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I dig around a little on the subject but did not found much Polish version of the Warsaw Uprising page w:pl:Powstanie Warszawskie in section "Korpsgruppe von dem Bach" has a translation of a German document listing all the Cossack forces and forces from Russia, Ukraine, Turkmenistan, Azerbaijan, etc. I found the photo of the original German document in some polish book as well. It seems like most of those forces were Cossack but few of them mention the specific region (Kuban, Don, etc.). The specific regiment in the image was described as "mixed" and Jakub Bondarenko was a commander of the 5th Regiment of Kuban Cossack Infantry before the assignment to Warsaw Uprising. I corrected the image description to clarify this point. I also diged out some more of the related images:
Hey, may be you can help me identify the arm badge of the soldiers. In two images one can see ROA badges, but the soldier by the canon seems to have "ВД" badge. Do you know by any chance what that might be? --Jarekt03:39, 10 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks a lot. That looks like a lot of work. The "ВД" stands for Войско Донское — Don Cossacks detachement. If you want you can post these pictures into 1st Cossack Division or VX-SS Cossack Corps, or make a gallery. If you need help, please let me know. --Hillock6503:47, 10 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
If you can add those images into most appropriate articles - it would be a big help. And since the images might be of interests to other nations involved (Russia, Ukraina, Germany, in addition to Poland) may be you can help me with translation of some of the descriptions. And thanks for deciphering "ВД" - it is nice to make this kind of connections.--Jarekt15:10, 13 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks. If you read Ukrainian, have a look at the Ukrainian version. There is way more there, I just don't have time to put it here. --Hillock65 (talk) 04:15, 21 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I saw you nominated the article for the dyk section. I moved the dyk nomination to the correct page. That other page was an archive of some sort. Lets hope it gets chosen. Ostap (talk) 05:16, 21 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I do not know whether or not this interview of Сергей Лукьяненко (one of the replies is particularly interesting) could be of any help for the Українофобія article. I have not yet logged in the Вікіпедія (but I will probably do it in a near future if I still have some time to contribute to it), that's the reason why I did not take part in it. Cheers. — Kanġi Oĥanko (talk) 11:02, 13 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Unfortunately, Live Journal entries are poor sources for WP. If there is a link to an academic publication, that's a different matter. Thanks for your interst, anyway. --Hillock65 (talk) 14:45, 13 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Please consider a more collaborative approach rather than reverting each other's edits as you did here, here,
here, or here. It makes very little sense to replace one's unsourced contribution with your own unsourced contribution (as it was happening in Zaporozhian Cossacks), but it is equally bad to replace a sourced contribution with another sourced contribution, only supporting a different POV (as it was happening in Ukrainian language). When multiple POVs exist, efforts must be made to combine them in a way that would not give undue prominence to any of them. Please try seeing beyond the fact that you and the other party dislike each other—you are, after all, adults. If you are truly interested in Wikipedia's success, you should know better than trying to outshout and outrevert each other.
Please continue working towards reaching a consensus on the talk pages of these two articles and try to avoid editing until such a consensus is reached. If the revert wars continue, the articles will be protected, which, as both sides know, will prevent uninvolved editors from making valuable contributions unrelated to your conflict. Always try to find at least some sources for the statements you include—remember, having a source, even inferior, always beats having no sources at all (don't forget— the threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth!). When multiple contradicting sources exist, combine them in such a way as to get as close to NPOV coverage as possible. The topics are clearly controversial, so neither of you can expect that only your view is the only one correct (there may not even be a "correct" view for that matter!). Thank you for your attention.—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); 16:23, 14 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for intervening, I am sorry to say, but it had to happen. Hopefully, now a meaningful conversation can start instead of accusations and personal attacks. Sincerely, --Hillock65 (talk) 17:13, 14 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Folks, instead of chewing old griefs over and over again, how about concentrating on what matters—content disputes at hand? You are not doing yourselves any favors by antagonizing each other. What are you more interested in—creating articles of superb quality or figuring out who offended whom where and how and why it was wrong? Honestly, can't you just let it go? Focus on content, not on delivery.—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); 17:37, 14 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
ASIMOI would like to thank you for your participation in my recent RfA, which I'm very glad to say was successful at 81/7/0. Some of the very best that Wikipedia has to offer came out to support or oppose me and the kind words from all the editors has really given me confidence to be an admin and I can't wait to start. I will take the advice of the opposes and not jump into any content disputes immediately. As well, I will try to add more content myself. Anyways, in thanks for participating in my RfA, here's your very own personal humanoid robot. Enjoy! --ÐeadΣyeДrrow (Talk - Contribs) 14:08, 20 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
hi,
i dont understand why you edit(or delete) the turkic identity of cossacks. its not my personal research, its the reality by professional researchers. i dont understand why all pple confused about being muslim and being turkic... those are the not same thing.--Orkh (talk) 00:49, 16 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
any source? what source? cumans(kipchaks) and late tatars were one of the main power of the area. cossack means adventurer in turkish, as many of them were turkic in origins. what do you want to do? cossacks were tribal confederation, not a race or nation.--Orkh (talk) 14:10, 20 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Having read it again, I am not so sure. I am afraid he has established his notability or notoriety by committing crimes in Ukraine and being a wanted man. It is hard to say. --Hillock65 (talk) 11:23, 4 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Citizenship and ethnicity
Two months ago I requested that a citizenship and ethnicity parameters should be added to Template:Infobox Writer. I has been requested again at Template talk:Infobox Writer and I think if several users will support it, It can added. In the case of Ukrainian writers such a Gogol and others this is important. Please join me there Bandurist (talk) 17:16, 4 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
re:Russia Ukraine relations
Right now, the article does read like an essay without any citations, so that wouldn't rule out deletion. But this is clearly a notable and largely discussed topic with many good sources, so I think to salvage it would be better. When it first was created I had been waiting for it. This is obviously one to keep an eye on. Ostap04:31, 18 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
A few editors have expressed a desire to illustrate the politicization of the Holodomor, or as they put it, the magnification of Holodomor (a scholarly topic no doubt). Do you think you could get a good image for this? I remember the Eurasian youth group breaking in and vandalizing a Holodmor exhibit in Moscow, do you think its possible to get any images of the destruction? Thanks, Ostap03:04, 30 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Here it is. It is from their site. It may qualify as 'fair use'. The quality is not very good and it depicts a fairly well known event, so we might try downloading it to WP. Unfortunately, I cannot help more with the Holodomor articles, I find all that hoopla around this topic very distasteful. Let me know if you need help downloading and rationalizing the fair use clause. I will help. --Hillock65 (talk) 03:16, 30 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I understand what you are saying, but don't some things just cross the line? And thanks for finding the image so fast. I'm not sure if it will be needed anymore. Thanks again. Ostap03:45, 30 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Holodomor
Would you like to explain why you did this as User:Horlo has not made a single effort to answer the questions regarding his additions. Also your edit comment on discussions, need I tell you that you have not put a single comment on the talk page so far. --Kuban Cossack12:50, 3 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The discussion is still going on. Maybe instead of revert warring you and your meat puppet should engage in discussion on the talk page? --Hillock65 (talk) 13:03, 3 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Actually since my last entry onto the discussion Horlo refused to answer any of my queries or provide convicing arguments for his changes to the status quo of the article. Also don't make unsourced accusations, provide evidence to me and Miyokan meatpuppeting? --Kuban Cossack14:50, 3 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Євразійський союз молоді
You are User:Гриць, right? If you have the time could you translate Євразійський союз молодi? I find this subject very interesting and I'm sure English wikipedia could use the article. Thanks, Ostap00:12, 5 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I moved what you didnt want here to the article talk page, as you requested. I didnt take any of the content, but if you still didnt like one of my fixed write there. Log in, log out (talk) 18:24, 5 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
You got insulted by Yulia's remarks?
So now you know how i feel when i was blamed to be M.V.E.i. That was insulting not less! Especialy when i already explained all on Faustian's talk page and figured it's all clear. If you have doubts, you can ask me questions, bringing out why you think so and recive answers.
What i said on the Ukrainians in Russia talk page was stupid, and the prove i really understood it was stupid is that i havent returned it when it was reverted. If you would know Russian, maybe you know i'm not shure you havent named it in your detales, any way, this rethoric wasn't used only by me, and as i understood by M.V.E.i., but by the whole Russian media during the orange revolution. Am i Mikhail Leontiev? Am i Shevchenko on the night program on ORT? Am i the whost in the ORT news Tolstoy?
Again, the fact that Ukrainians users came against me and got so alarmed when they thought i'm M.V.E.i. shows that he did many things which made many people against him, and i wasn't ok to, but i'm really sorry if you, Ostap, or anyone got offenced. Log in, log out (talk) 09:27, 5 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
And that and that was nothing but a cheap provocation. If i wouldn't be mature i would say it's the same person. Really out of place. I admited i was wrong their, don't know why you keep on insisting on such a useless fight. Log in, log out (talk) 13:24, 5 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Why have you removed the discussion about Jews in Ukraine on the Ukrainians page? Aren't alk pages ment for political discussion? I'm yet reverting it back because if already two removed it then i dont understand something. Media Sapiens (talk) 17:53, 10 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Please read the guideline: WP:TALK. Keep on topic: Talk pages are for discussing the article, not for general conversation about the article's subject (much less other subjects). Keep discussions on the topic of how to improve the associated article. Irrelevant discussions are subject to removal. --Hillock65 (talk) 18:59, 10 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on Zaporizhian Sich. Note that the three-revert rule prohibits making more than three reversions on a single page within a 24 hour period. Additionally, users who perform a large number of reversions in content disputes may be blocked for edit warring, even if they do not technically violate the three-revert rule. If you continue, you may be blocked from editing. Please do not repeatedly revert edits, but use the talk page to work towards wording and content that gains a consensus among editors. If necessary, pursue dispute resolution. ScarianCall me Pat!16:45, 11 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
My pleasure!
Hello Hillock65, Miyokan has smiled at you! Smiles promote WikiLove and hopefully this one has made your day better. Spread the WikiLove by smiling at someone else, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past or a good friend. Go on, smile! Cheers, and happy editing! Smile at others by adding {{subst:Smile}} to their talk page with a friendly message.
I see. He was from Smolensk, then from Simferopol, now from Belarus, and all along he has been from Israel. I wonder if he learned anything from his previous escapades? --Hillock65 (talk) 19:13, 12 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
On 25 July, 2008, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Grégoire Orlyk, which you created or substantially expanded. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.
Just a quick query, are you by any chance familiar with the film "Annychka"? I created a stub on it, but I have no idea what the film is actually about, aside from what you can find out online. If you have seen it or know what the storyline is (my understanding is that it is at least somewhat famous) could you expand it? Its already been proposed for deletion because of lack of content. Thanks. Ostap05:27, 5 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
With regard to your ANI comments... I think you should try some dispute resolution, namely an RfC about this user and an arbitration if RfC does not work.Biophys (talk) 18:57, 29 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
How may RfC's does it take to stop him from stalking me and picking up revert wars? There was one RfC on him here. I am not very familiar with the procedure but am seriously considering filing for ArbCom. --Hillock65 (talk) 02:37, 30 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Can you keep a look out at the Olga Kurylenko article, some non-acount editors try to make her French and Russian without giving any or bad references. Finally Ukraine got a nice poster board and then some bullies in the playground try to steal her and give her to there country. She clearly only mentions her Ukrainian heritage in her interviews. The Russians should finally learn Ukraine (and Georgia etc.) are not part of there country any more! People who speak Russian are Russian(?), why isn't Mozart German then? If those editors really want to do Olga a favour the should protest against the raising of Russian Gas prices in Ukraine instead of claiming only the good bits from Ukraine, I'm fat up with this ethnicity kind of thinking. Everybody from Ukraine is a Ukrainian!, people who look at ethnicity first are semi-Nazi's to me! -- Mariah-Yulia (talk) 19:54, 2 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
This arbitration case, formerly, Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Kuban Kazak-Hillock65, has been closed and the final decision is available here.Kuban kazak (talk·contribs) has been banned from editing Wikipedia-en for the duration of one year.
Hi Hillock65, regarding this revert of yours, please consult the cited source, which says:
In 2002, Poland took a first step toward settling the two issues when President Aleksander Kwasniewski expressed “regret” over the postwar resettlement program, known as Operation Vistula. “The infamous Operation Vistula is a symbol of the abominable deeds perpetrated by the communist authorities against Polish citizens of Ukrainian origin,” he said. He continued, labeling the argument that “Operation Vistula was the revenge for the slaughter of Poles by the Ukrainian Insurgent Army” in 1943-1944 “fallacious and ethically inadmissible,” as it invoked “the principle of collective guilt.”
Since we are quoting the source, we should be using the original wording, and not replace it at our will. Kwasniewski expressed his regret over the resettlement program, not over "ethnic cleansing". Please consider revering it back. Thanks. --Lysytalk13:42, 4 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Right, I searched for a direct quote but failed. Nevertheless, we are citing the narrative as a source, so we should stay close to it here. Thanks. --Lysytalk10:01, 7 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
DYK for Pacification of Ukrainians in Eastern Galicia (1930)
The Arbitration Committee recently passed a motion to open a case to investigate allegations surrounding a private Eastern European mailing list. The contents of the motion can be viewed here.
You have been named as one of the parties to this case at the request of the Arbitration Committee, here. Please take note of the explanations given in italics at the top of that section; if you have any further questions about the list of parties, please feel free to contact me on my talk page.
The Committee has explicitly requested that evidence be presented within one week of the case opening; ie. by September 25. Evidence can be presented on the evidence subpage of the case; please ensure that you follow the Committee instructions regarding the responsible and appropriate submission of evidence, as set out in the motion linked previously, should you choose to present evidence.
Please further note that, due to the exceptional nature of this case (insofar as it centers on the alleged contents of a private mailing list), the Committee has decided that the normal workshop format will not be used. The notice near the top of the cases' workshop page provides a detailed explanation of how it will be used in this case.
On advice and with further consideration, I think it's best to simply lock the article rather than handing out individual blocks. Edit warring is never fruitful. Please work towards consensus on the talk page. The article should reflect all sides of the issue in a neutral fashion. Please avoid making repeated reverts. In the future, ask for help or page protection sooner. Will Bebacktalk10:08, 4 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
There is a principle, sometimes unspoken on Wikipedia, that it is worth giving editors the opportunity to show themselves. "By their fruits ye shall know them" is one way of saying it. This immediate dispute doesn't need to be fixed today or this week, it's more important that there's a long term solution. Will Bebacktalk10:32, 4 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
November 2009
You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on Battle of Konotop. Note that the three-revert rule prohibits making more than three reversions on a single page within a 24-hour period. Additionally, users who perform several reversions in content disputes may be blocked for edit warring even if they do not technically violate the three-revert rule. When in dispute with another editor you should first try to discuss controversial changes to work towards wording and content that gains a consensus among editors. Should that prove unsuccessful, you are encouraged to seek dispute resolution, and in some cases it may be appropriate to request page protection. Please stop the disruption, otherwise you may be blocked from editing. ≈ Chamaltalk¤02:57, 1 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I didn't mention, I established a consensus. I made a change per WP:BRD informed other editors and made a change and that was before the new editing rules had been established in the article. I intend to abide by them now. --Hillock65 (talk) 14:56, 1 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
That's not the point, Hillock65. The edit you made was a continuation of the edit war that resulted in the protection of the article. You have done practically the same thing you were warned for earlier, just after that protection expired. How do you expect to resolve the issue if you act like that? I will trust you to keep your word, but please remember that you have already been given a final warning for edit warring on this article. ≈ Chamaltalk¤15:04, 1 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The most contentious issue - the tendentious info box has been removed. I acted in good faith, offered my opinion on talk, made a change and waited for discussion to resume. The clear rules for this article now have been established and I intend to abide by them. If my previous edit warrants a ban, I am fine with it, the rules are the rules. --Hillock65 (talk) 15:14, 1 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for uploading File:Ukrainians Caricature.jpg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).
If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of "file" pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "File" from the dropdown box. Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. ZooFari06:11, 12 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
This arbitration case has been closed, and the final decision may be viewed at the link above.
User:Piotrus resigned the administrator tools during the case proceedings and may only seek to regain adminship by a new request for adminship or by request to the Arbitration Committee.
User:Piotrus is banned for three months. At the conclusion of his ban, a one year topic ban on articles about Eastern Europe, their talk pages, and any related process discussion, widely construed, shall take effect.
User:Digwuren is banned for one year. He is directed to edit Wikipedia from only a single user account, and advise the Arbitration Committee of the name of the account that he will use. Should he not advise the committee by the end of the one year ban, he will remain indefinitely banned until a single account is chosen.
User:Digwuren is placed on a one year topic ban on articles about Eastern Europe, their talk pages, and any related process discussion, widely construed. This shall take effect following the expiration of both above mentioned bans.
The following users are topic banned from articles about Eastern Europe, their associated talk pages, and any process discussion about same, widely construed, for one year:
User:Jacurek is topic banned from articles about Eastern Europe, their associated talk pages, and any process discussion about same, widely construed, for six months.
User:Tymek is strongly admonished for having shared his account password. He is directed to keep his account for his own exclusive use, and not to allow any other person to use it under any circumstance.
All the participants to the mailing list are strongly admonished against coordinating on-wiki behavior off-wiki and directed to keep discussion of editing and dispute resolution strictly on wiki and in public. All editors are reminded that the editorial process and dispute resolution must take place on Wikipedia itself, using the article talk pages and project space for this purpose. No discussion held off-wiki can lead to a valid consensus, the basis of our editorial process. Off-wiki coordination is likely to lead to echo chambers where there is a false appearance of neutrality and consensus.
Welcome to the embassy of the Wikipedia in Maltese! If you have any announcements or questions regarding international issues or the Maltese Wikipedia, you are invited to post them here or to the discussion page. Message to the embassy
Ласкаво просимо до посольства мальтійської Вікіпедії! Якщо у вас є оголошення або запитання про міжнародні стосунки, або про мальтійську Вікіпедію, просимо розмістити їх тут або на сторінці обговорення. Звернення до посольства
It's a bit late now for sanctions, but I'd still like to remind you that this edit of yours broke the agreed-on rules of engagement on the Battle of Konotop article. This is unfortunate, as it apparently set the scene for a new outbreak of revert-warring by other editors. Fut.Perf.☼15:02, 27 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Wasn't this edit that provoked this edit war? Where did I break the rule? It was 1 RR per day, I left the summary. I didn't come to this article to delete whole passages, I reverted a deletion by User:Voyevoda, whose actions indeed violated the rules. He removed whole section of the article without any discussion at talk whatsoever. --Hillock65 (talk) 15:12, 27 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
You didn't discuss your revert on the talk page. Instead, your edit summary ("do not make unilateral significant deletion of the text. Use discussion page") implied that you took the right to first revert and then expect the other person to start discussing. The rules were designed to get everybody to do the exact opposite: first discuss, then wait for the other person to respond, then and only then (if still necessary), revert. Fut.Perf.☼15:22, 27 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Alright, I am ready to take the blame and accept the consequences. I haven't edited this article for more than a year, even though I wrote it first, I couldn't remember the specifics of these extensive rules. My fault. Even though, I am glad they are in place as this used to be the scene of vicious edit warring. I will be more careful. --Hillock65 (talk) 15:29, 27 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Warum bestraft hier eigentlich niemand Galassi, der ständig revertiert, kaum an der Diskussion teilnimmt und generell nichts konstruktives zum Artikel beiträgt? Er ist derjenige, der ständig anfängt meine Edits zu revertieren, nicht ich seine. Aber er scheint hier eine Art Narrenfreiheit zu genießen... --Voyevoda (talk) 15:36, 27 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Well, if there are sources stating that he (Vladimir Katriuk) was a member of a Ukrainian nationalist organisation (which one exactly?), it should be noted in the article. As of yet, it only states that the unit where he served was made of nationalists, but doesn't specify if he actually was one. Per WP:BLP there should be no ambiguity or suppositions as to claims about living persons. --Hillock65 (talk) 13:40, 28 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Hi, what we have here is an individual who lied to obtain Canadian citizenship. The new evidence is confirming he lied about how he participated in Battallion 118. I agree with your assertion on the article talk page that when it comes to bios we have to be careful. The evidence is building that he committed war crimes and lied about it. He would not dare tell the truth in the Federal Court of Canada, he is to smart for that, so he made up some story about being an innocuous guard. The Federal Government of Canada is reviewing the new evidence and considering whether to re-open the case. At the very least he will be deported. I hope that he is put on trial and apply the facts to the law and whatever the verdict, I can live with that. I hope you work with me to build a better article. Currently, there is an anonymous IP deleting cited information. It might be Katriuk or an acquaintance of his, I do not know. He certainly seems to be a nazi sympathizer. Thanks. JunoBeach (talk) 19:23, 28 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
.jpg)
.jpg)
.jpg)
.jpg)
){kind=link}
