Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 23:27, 24 June 2007

Wrongful block

{{unblock|Please review the block, check user if necessary. My editing the same article with that other user is hardly a reason for block. I edited countless other articles with many other users. --] 21:43, 27 February 2007 (UTC)}}

I have unblocked you and User:Chuprinka. It looks like a misunderstanding to me. Alex Bakharev 23:00, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

I think you should know about this thread I started at WP:ANI that brought about many responses. --Irpen 23:10, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

Thanks --Hillock65 02:35, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

Glad

To see you editing again. Looking forward to finishing Khmelnytsky project!-- _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk}  15:16, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

I may not stay long though, I am just bored with Ukrainian wiki for the moment and besides, I always wanted to finish the Khmelnytsky article. There is a lot of work to be done, I may not have enough patience for all of it. --Hillock65 16:37, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

Hillock, we had our share of content disagreements but I am glad that we were able to overturn the egregious block and the admin who issued finally seems to have gotten a message. Whatever (or even if) more content disagreements will follow, please consider staying and, trust me, things here are workable even if sometimes they seem the opposite. It's much more fun here than in uk-wiki which unfortunately has only about 20 active users and a rather dull POV uniformity (the latter is my impression which may be an uninformed one). Regards, --Irpen 04:05, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

I wouldn't characterize Ukrainian Misplaced Pages like that. It is just that right now there is a lull there, a couple of people have taken time off. I like it there way better than here, the joy there is in creating things rather than fighting with other editors, which seems to a problem with English wikipedia. In my previous experience I spent more time in conflict resolution and fighting vandalism rather than writing. If that is how one measures fun, than maybe....--Hillock65 04:47, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

No, fighting vandals is no fun as well as dealing with the nationalist POV pushers of all sorts. What is fun, though, is the diversity here that results in more balance most of the time. Some articles in uk-wiki are just great, but too many are unwikified copies of UE (I just love seeing UE articles there. Helps with sourcing but I would have preferred them buried deep in the article's history.) Some yet articles are just unacceptably POV and I do not want to go into naming names or articles. What is really alarming is how few editors edit it. I wrote there to Yakudza about that and I really do not understand why this being the case while there are millions who can write in the language and many of them must have the decent internet access. Whether the problem is with the lack of visibility or ideological rigidity or simply that some of the educated Ukrainians are drained to other more lively wikis, I don't really know.

Anyway, I will comment on your Khmelnytsky's expansion in the article's talk. --Irpen 05:21, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

KU and J casualties

It so happens that I recently found some relevant numbers for that - added to discussion, feel free to adapt into the article proper. And 1916 book is a no-no as a reliable source, especially for numbers... -- _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk}  00:50, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

I am afraid Simon Dubnow's 1916 piece is not the worst part, there is also a CBS News timetable as a reliable source for numbers! Let's see where it goes. Thanks for your comments. --Hillock65 01:17, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

Newspapers and old books are sunk by modern scholarly papers, if there is any contradiction. Due weight may be invoked if sources of similar reliablity are contradicting each other, this is not the case here.-- _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk}  02:59, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

I was wondering if we could file for some king of mediation or help from somewhere, I hate these revert wars led by admins. I don't have much experience in this squabbling, do you have any suggestions?--Hillock65 17:18, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

Please note I don't monitor other user talk pages for replies, if you reply on your talk page to my message the chances I will read it are less than 100%. I think the article is improving, but you can always ask for WP:RFC to get more attention - it is a good advice before mediation. If the situation changes (revert warring, etc.) then check WP:DR. I hope this will not be necessary, although stubborness of some editors in relying on obsolete sources and accusing others of bad faith is somewhat irritating.-- _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk}  19:50, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

BK I now something about, Ethnic Russians in Ukraine I am afraid is far from my area of knowledge. Have you tried asking for input from Ukrainian and Russian noticeboards? -- _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk}  20:31, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

I will try that. Thanks anyway.--Hillock65 20:38, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

Danzig, per Talk:Gdańsk/Vote (precedent) that led to the creation of WP:NCGN (specifically it would be "Danzig (Gdańsk)" on first occurence, then Danzig in the article).-- _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk}  00:22, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

Use the talk page

Please stop revert-warring and act in Good Faith. Otherwise I will make a formal complaint to the admin and ask for the page to be locked, use the talk page prior to doing so. Just because you think I am a bad editor (which I could not really care) that does give you the excuse to continue disruptive behaivour. There is a talk page on the article so please return to discussing. --Kuban Cossack 21:38, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

I think the fact that out of your contribution in the last hour you made more than four reverts and only one talk page entry. That really is enough to summarize your behaivour in a nutshell as disruptive. If you want to discuss the article go to the talk page. But for all intents and purposes I am disappointed in you. --Kuban Cossack 21:50, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

Yes, I did make some of those reverts, but however after explaining most of them on the talk page. So please, не ищи правду в других коли в тебе ее нету. --Kuban Cossack 22:06, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

So is Russian language strange for you? Well like I said, don't take out your insecurities on fellow wikipedians. --Kuban Cossack 22:21, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

Several questions

I am now back editing, not sure for how long, and there is a huge backlog of things I must do onwiki which I plan to address in the arbitrary order, not by the priorities. I want to minimize the amount of empty arguing to spend time most productively. Here is a random and incomplete list of requests I have to you. I may add some more later:

1. Re: Khmelnytsky. I certainly plan to attend to the uprising article. This is going to be solved sooner or later. I am worried, however, about the duplication of material in the bio article. I raised this issue at B Kh talk a while ago that the article unnecessarily duplicates what belongs to the Treaty, Uprising, Ruin and several other articles. Unlike Pugachev, BKh is not a person of a single event. As such, whicle Bolotnikov and Pugachev's articles may be practically merged into their uprising, it is not so for BKh. Since you developed the bio article some months earlier, adding to it a lots of material from general historiography, I request that you give some thought of what should belongs where and move the material around explaining at talk why. Since most of the material is yours, asking you to do that is most natural. --Irpen

   I am tired of revert wars there. I'll give it some time until issues over forking staff from the Uprising article get settled. It needs reworking, however, let's give it some time.--Hillock65 01:36, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

   Please act as if the uprising article is settled. The direction is crystal clear and I will help to get it resolved. We should suppress forking from the bio article regardless from the rest. Since this is your material, you are the best person to do that. --Irpen

   Let's wait until dust settles there, I think they are still fighting in the Uprising article and forking off into another article may still continue. Let's give it some time.--Hillock65 05:00, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

   As you wish wrt to the uprising events but there is lots of other historiography. --Irpen 06:06, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

2. Unrelated q.: regarding amateurish self-drawn pics, I can see the validity of this concern. I prefer to use published maps under the FU rationale, but sometimes it is impossible. Good maps can be drawn and are, of course subject to discussion, but since maps are informative, we need to discuss how they should be improved, not whether we need them. On a related topic, please remove from the ua-Ukrainophobia article the pics you found somewhere at LJ (like "Stydno" and the other one). Those are clearly self-made and unencyclopedic, unless their authorship can be traced to known nationalist organizations or people, such pics are pure junk. --Irpen

   In regards to the hand-drawn picture, the amateurish representation is the least of my worries. The undue weight it gives to the so-called "self-determination of ethnic Russians" is a far greater concern. See discussion page. In regards to the uk. page, please raise concern there. Even though I am the main contributor, there are other people and their views should be listened to. It's hard to discuss both pages at the same time. --Hillock65 01:36, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

   If you click on my contribs there, from my last entry you will see why are decided to decline any participation there (despite I am still getting the requests to the contrary.) The sad incident and, more than that, the responses that arose, exemplified the deeply rooted problems and I want to have nothing to do with this all until the community addresses the deeply rooted problems first. I avoid even going there now to reduce further stress. I simply mentioned the issue as it is related to this one and if you prefer to go with the double standards depending on your approval or disapproval of a specific POV, do as you please. Uk-wiki is all yours, at least for now. --Irpen

   If I may, I think you are using English WP methods there and they backfire. Revert wars rarely happen there, that's why they don't even have 3RR rule, or at least I don't remember when they used it last. The best way is not to cause revert war, but rather discuss and try to get people on yuor side. Once the revert war starts there it is hard to get things settled and pashions inflame. There are people, who have different views from AlexK and there is sort of power struggle going on between the admins. If you try, you may find allies or people sharing your vision. In any case give it some time. --Hillock65 05:00, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

   I am aware of the power struggle you mention. I do not want to use it and I do not want to do anything there until the community settles its problems on its own. What happened there has nothing to do with the content dispute but with the user's using admin powers to win it and another admin stepping in with threats when the valid criticism was raised. The issue at hand, however, is a narrow one. Obscured unsourced amateurish pictures' being unencyclopedic. Map is one thing, political posters representing no one is something else. I am surprised you don't see it. I raised the issue there some time earlier. --Irpen 06:06, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

3. Little Russian, the discussion is going to continue but lets not invoke (or invent) the term's offensiveness. The term should be discussed strictly in terms of propriety. I am to review the article and will make sure the term is not used for Bolshevik revolution time, I agree with that, but let's stick to the arguments of the proper context. Unlike offensive "khohol", the LR term has a clear historic meaning, including the origin. We should discuss the usage and carry the discussion within the proper scope.

   Let's be frank, attitudes toward term Little Russian is more negative than positive, it envokes imperialist attitude towards Ukrainians . And especially lately, since this term acquired new meaning and importance for Russian imperial revisionists like Smolin. For me personally, it is even more insulting than "khohol" — stupidity and lack of culture is not as bad as pure hate. The use of it beyond generally accepted norm in the historiographic literature is clearly designed to show Ukrainians where their place is, and its use in the article is pure provocation. I explained it on the discussion page.--Hillock65 01:36, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

   it invokes just as much as you want to see in it. The propriety of this term is strictly defined by the context. In the context of the 19th century and earlier there is no uniformity that Little Russian and Ukrainian are even fully equivalent and substituting the terminology given in the census by stretching the terms into the 19th century times is unencyclopedic. --Irpen

   That's exactly my point of view as well. However, I believe some are using it as a pretext for Russian imperialist ideas and its negative connotation after Smolin, Ulyanov, Shulgin and others has strengthened. Had it remained in the textbooks about 18th century that would be quite different matter. On the related topic, take a look at Russians in Ukraine. It is hopelessly deadlocked, precisely because of this terminology. Some are so vindictive and spiteful that would not yild an inch in the pleasure of calling Ukrainians Little Russians. This is totally unrelated to the topic of the article, however, unwillingness of some to move for neutral name used in all scientific literature about the period, virtually paralized any progress. The article should be protected, until acceptable solution can be found. Please, feel free to contribute there as well, it badly needs new editors with fresh ideas.--Hillock65 05:00, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

   The solution of this particular dispute is obvious to me but may be time consuming to implement and I am now severely backed up. I will get there soon. --Irpen 06:06, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

However, let's put aside for now the contentious issues and, at least implement the agreeable changes. Please defork Khmelnytsky since most of the additional info now there was added by you. --Irpen 03:15, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

No personal attacks, please!

Your last comment at Talk:Russians in Ukraine was very uncivil and uncalled for. Instead of discussing my paranoia, you should be trying to reach concensus on some other points of discussion. This is not the first time I am sking you to stay off personal attacks and discuss issues related to the article and not about me. (see WP:NPA) If your insults don't stop I will file a complaint. Hope that won't be necessary.--Hillock65 22:07, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

In that case either actually discuss the topic w/o excessive emotions or simply ... уступи дорогу. The choice is yours, or go ahead and file the complaints for all I care, if it is impossible to have a civil discussion with you, then you might as well get a proper third party sooner than later. --Kuban Cossack 22:43, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

Russians in Ukraine

Please stop repeatedly reverting others at this article. You should use the talk page instead of (not in addition to) reverting. If discussion alone isn't helping, take a look at the other options at dispute resolution, and consider mediation. There are better ways to resolve disputes than trying to win them with more reverts than the other party. Dmcdevit·t 05:59, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

There was a misunderstanding

When i called this discusion stupid, i didn't mean the discussion you started, i ment the discussion of "are Ukrainians mini-Russians" (I explained that this name is not saying that), thats what i ment, so i'm sorry you were offenced because you i didn't even think of offencing. M.V.E.i. 18:19, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

Alright, case closed. Happy editing!--Hillock65 18:25, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

Hours of work?

If reverting other people is hours of work, then really it sums your point on wikipedia in a nutshell, now

Russians and Ukrainians, both Eastern Slavic peoples,

vs your

Belarusians, Russians and Ukrainians, Eastern Slavic

so, Belarusians, Russians and Ukrainians are now not Eastern slavic peoples? Hours of work on adding nonsense? Original... --Kuban Cossack 20:35, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

If you have any comments or suggestions about the article, mention them at the discussion page there, and refrain from bothering me with personal attacks. Instead of revert war you might mention there what's your problem and we will discuss. Reverting other people's work is counterproductive and is leading nowhere.--Hillock65 20:39, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

I am revert warring? You have so far reverted everything I added. Stop playing the innocent and claiming personal attacks, you never respond on the talk page. --Kuban Cossack 20:45, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

I thought I asked you to stop bothering me here and start discussion of the issues that concern you on the discussion page.--Hillock65 20:48, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

Your arrogance does not help, FYI your talk page is part of an international project, and anyone can post if he/she or they wish to.... But's that's beyond the point.

Ok, lets start again. don't revert anything in the next 20 minutes, I will raise the talk page, and we shall dicuss it. If you do so I promise in turn NOT to post anything on your talk page? Deal? --Kuban Cossack 20:51, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

You must be taking me for a sucker to suggest that. You revert the article yourself to before your last revert rampage and then we will talk. Some other editors apart from me and you made changes as well, if you don't respect me - respect them. Asking for discussion after destroying my work - you've got to have the nerve! Use the talk page.--Hillock65 20:57, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

Russians in Ukraine

I dont know the details of the edit war beetwen you and Kubam Cossak, but this war reallyhurts eventually the article. As i can see the page is now protected, so please try to find a compromise with Kuban Cossack on the talk page as he offered you (As long as the page is protected he couldn't revert anything). We are all here tyo make the article better, so please, try to find with him a compromise. I inderstand that this war is not of my buisness, but it's sad for me that instead of improving the article and it's level we cant continue our work. M.V.E.i.

Unfortunately, the revert war is everyone's business, by reveting the article yesterday, hours of my work and of one other editor have been ruined. I trust you are not taking sides in this, and have chastised Kuban Kazak on his discussion page as well for starting all this. Or is it just me?--Hillock65 15:53, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

I have sended a messege to Kuban Kazak and told him that i asked you to try to find a coimpromise with him on the tolk page and that if you will try he should not t urn his back on you. I elso told him that this is not my buisness but this edit war hurts the article. I cant take a side because i never read those edit-war messeges, thats why all i can, and try to do is ask you to to find a compromise. M.V.E.i. 17:43, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

I am happy to see that you are not taking sides and remain neutral. Thank you for trying to resolve this issue. Contribution from all editors is very welcome. It might be worthwhile for you to look at the history before the revert war, maybe you will find something of interest or have an opinion about.--Hillock65 17:50, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

Please read the messege i left to you and Kuban Kazak at the talk page. M.V.E.i. 18:42, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

Please check

Please check whether you put your agree statement in Talk:Russians in Ukraine to the plase you really ment.--AndriyK 17:35, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

Did you check?--AndriyK 18:34, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

Hillock65, Lets not talk about what he did or didn't do, the trick is we speak about the article. Say what are your complains on his article edit, and what are your demends about what to do in the article. M.V.E.i. 20:45, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

I don't control the article, tell me what do you want to add or change. Also please use the discussion page about the article.--Hillock65 20:50, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

Ukrainian-Soviet War

Is it possible we just don't have a redirect - or are we truly missing an article on that? Could you check ukr and ru wikis if they have something? -- _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk}  17:43, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

I hope Hillock does not mind me answering your question, but we have an article Ukraine after the Russian Revolution which covers that time frame. --Kuban Cossack 20:55, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, there is exactly a paragraph in that article covering that topic. In Ukrainian Wiki there is a far better article with this title: uk:Українсько-більшовицька війна 1917—21 I am sure there must be one in Polish as well. --Hillock65 23:45, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

Point is that the very such title would be a POV term since Ukrainians were split in this conflict between the pro-Soviet and anti-Soviet faction. The former got support from USSR and the latter was eventualy supported by Poland. So, it was in a sense a Ukrainian civil war with many factions fighting each other and external enemies. We have an article under a neutral title that can be developed but there is no need for the new one to make a WP:POINT. --Irpen 00:01, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

Not necessarily, at that point, the only Ukrainian gov't on the territory of Ukraine was the UNR. With the same logic you could object to the title Soviet-German war, since Soviets were split in this conflict between the pro-German RoA and anti-German Red Army factions.--Hillock65 00:08, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

On the contrary it was the Russians who were split between the RoA and the Red Army not the Soviets. Just like Ukrainians were between the Soviets and the Germans (UPA, SS-Galizia and the like feaces...) Except unlike in Ukraine, in Russia we do not have revisionism about our war-time collaborators.... However that is off point, and Irpen is right, already in 1918 you had the two South-Russian Soviet Republics, Denikin and others, all had Ukrainians in their ranks.--Kuban Cossack 00:22, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

On a separate note, thanks for the article, I think the image uk:Зображення:Ukraine 12-1917-5-1918.jpg will find its use in an English wikipedia, particularly the internal borders of Ukraine...thanks a great lot!--Kuban Cossack 00:22, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

However much Russian nationalists tend to think about the Red Army, it was by far made of different nationalities, including Russians. As well Germans in their ranks had not only Germans but all other axis forces as well as RoA, Russian Cossacks and Kaminsky Brigade. And Roa too was not made exclusively of Russians as well. It is the perspective from which you treat the subject that matters. From Russian nationalist - indeed there cannot be a Soviet Ukrainian war, since Ukraine was supposed to be only within USSR. From Ukrainian point of view, it sure can - during Ukrainian civil war, as Irpen pointed out, a Ukrainian gov't fought against Soviets. Mind you, not Russians but Soveits (which again, were made of Ukrainians as well). Poles also did (see Polish-Soviet War). If this encyclopedia is based on Russian nationalist ideas (as I suspect it is), then Soviet-Ukrainian war is indeed impossible. On a separate note about uk. article - sorry to burst your bubble yet again in regards to sources: they have to be from scientific and reliable published sources, which WP, even Ukrainian one is evidently not. --Hillock65 00:39, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

A narrow comment: uk-wiki is not a source, I agree, but this map is obviously taken from some book. Could you please find out more on the map's source? Thanks, --Irpen 01:38, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

NVM, found it myself: "УКРАЇНА. ІСТОРИЧНИЙ АТЛАС для 10 класу.", К.: Мапа, 2002 р. Certainly a reliable source and if anyone wants to upload it to wiki, I will help with fairuse rationale. --Irpen 02:27, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

At the moment the abovementioned article does not exist, so downloading images without text would be premature.--Hillock65 02:31, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

It can be used for Ukraine after the Russian Revolution and it can be used as a source to self-draw maps of post-revolutionary republics. --Irpen 02:34, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

Unless we were to merge Polish-Ukrainian War into it (which I don't recommend), I think Soviet-Ukrainian War needs a separate article.-- _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk}  06:49, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

Point is, Piotrus, that it was not Ukrainian-Soviet war but a Ukrainian civil war with non-Ukrainian participation. --Irpen 07:01, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

FWIW, the Ukrainian article includes maps which name the war "War between Soviet Russia and UNR" (actually, several wars of such name are distinguished there). As another FWIW note, the modern Belarusian historiography refers to the former "Russian-Lithuanian" and "Russian-Polish" wars of 16-17th cent. as "War(s) between Muscovy state (eventually, Russian Tsardom) and Great Duchy of Lithuania (eventually, Commonwealth)". Yury Tarasievich 08:32, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

Please self-revert

Can you please explain the nature of this edit. I raised the issue on the talk page several times . Please revert your edit promptly.--Kuban Cossack 16:15, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

Thank you for pointing out the parts. I will respond there momentarily. --Hillock65 16:24, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

Russians in Ukraine

You have been blocked for continuing the sterile edit warring with Kuban Kazak at Russians in Ukraine. As I asked you both before, please use some kind of dispute resolution, like WP:RFM instead of just battling it out with repeated reversions. Dmcdevit·t 20:45, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

ULP

I've put in a my two cents on the Talk:Podilsko-Voskresenska Line, hope you don't mind. Please feel free to add something. I am not very familiar with the metropoliten subject but said something about the languages policy. --Hillock65 19:14, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

Thanks. I'll wait for the guy that made the third comment to reply to it, and then I'll participate. — Alex 19:23, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

I think he's offline right now... Darn. — Alex 19:25, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

Mediation Cabal Case

Hi, Hillock65. I've decided to take on your medcab case. If you have any concerns about this, please tell me, otherwise I look forward to resolving the case with you. - G1ggy /_Contribs 05:57, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

Thank you for taking time and effort to help us out. It is appreciated.--Hillock65 05:58, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

Why did you do this?

Are you ever going to change? Adding such POV comments like Pro-Moscow non-governmental organizations is only going to escalate the conflict, please revert it to Fisenko's version which was stable and even you seemed not to mind it. --Kuban Cossack 17:47, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

You live be edit wars and continuous reverts. Barely having gotten out of the ban you start revert wars on another article with another editor, than you come to this article again and start your edits by reverts again. Is that is the way it is going to be? Ever thought about discussing issues with the editors of whose edits you disapprove? Let's not start it all over. This article has been reverted too many times. By reverting the third editor you are starting the new round of revert wars. PLEASE STOP. Enough is enough. Go to mediation or conflict resolution before starting another revert war.--Hillock65 17:56, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

Please keep discussions on one page, don't worry I am watching you. And the question I asked why did you revert, having yourself come out of an identical ban. My reversion was explained, it was pure trolling by User:Ukrained who lives by conflicts (and it is not a personal attack, look at his whole contribution list). You however just reverted because I reverted. And that puts you even lower than me. Once again please revert to the stable version by User:Fisenko and take it from there. --Kuban Cossack 18:00, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

I also explained, why I support Ukrained positions. I don't know him that well, but he raised valued issues and I totally agree with him. You and Russianname flooded the article with Russian nationalist propaganda and now you want to presereve the status quo. You and I are not the only editors, respect their opinions and don't characterize them off-hand as trolls. The same can be said about you as well. Discussion is the only way to settle disputes, not revert wars. --Hillock65 18:10, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

So here you have effectively said that you support the flooding of a Ukrainian nationalist POV, which Ukrained has explicitly said that he shares. So by you reverting the version (not picking out the relevant points and retaining them) you essentially put yourself back to square one. And yet you are calling for discussion, so will it be reverts or discussions? If I was to revert again would you revert as well? That is called double standards, and it will be reported. --Kuban Cossack 18:13, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

Ok, this is the last message that I will respond to. I don't feed trolls, sorry. Don't put words in my mouth, I didn't say anything effectively or not. I support his edits, even though I don't know him. Please try showing some Good Faith in regards to Ukrained and other editors. If you disagree with his edits, start discussion and reason, or one more time, ask for mediation. Reverts will not help, I pray you would realize that by now. Please don't bother me on that issue anymore and use the article discussion page. --Hillock65 18:25, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

Tagging without explanation

Hello, you tagged the article Russians in Ukraine and did not explained what is the problem. The references I gave are from the modern Ukrainian and Ukrainian-speaking research. And all the facts that were added are relevant to the topic: Russians in the Ukraine----Russianname 05:59, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

I appreciate your concern, I left a note on the discussion page. Please limit discussions to the appropriate page, this is not the place for it. --Hillock65 07:10, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

Accusations of "Ukrainophobia"

Could you identify those mysterious "Ukrainophobes" by name? Thanks in advance from ethnically Ukrainian Ghirla 13:57, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

Oh, My God! The last part really disturbed me. I better not continue. No comment. --Hillock65 00:51, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

Thoughts

Hi Hillock! It's hard not to notice your valuable activity of improving the Misplaced Pages. I'd like to share one idea that I thought of but have never realized due to lack of time and, honestly, due to lack of deep knowledge of the subject. I'm talking about writing a new article Language policies in Ukraine. This is a neutral scientific title, which is used in a bunch of countries (as well as "language politics"), and in my opinion it is likely to be one of the first articles a person who is looking for npov will read. The attempts (unfortunately not so productive) were taken to create such article last year. Please check Talk:Ukrainization. There already exist two articles (Ukrainization and more recent Russian language in Ukraine) with both in part describe the language policies in Ukraine but both from the same angle. Ukrainian language rather describes the Ukrainian language by itself and its development. What we are missing is a neutral article that speaks not of a particular language, but rather of the language policies in Ukraine, which include historical policies of suppression of Ukrainian language and distribution of Russian, Polish and Romanian languages in Ukraine, and vice versa. As a crucial part, it should also give a neutral overview of the current language policies that are in place in independent Ukraine (reopening of Ukrainian schools (only 50% of schools in Ukraine were Ukrainian by the end of Soviet era), opening of Tatar, Romanian, Polish schools in the regions settled by national minorities, adaptation of Ukrainian law toward European standards in language polices, etc.). For the last part, I thought it should be built up from the one sided Ukrainization article. For the historical policies it can grow out of what is written in Ukrainian language, Ems Ukaz, Valuyevsky Ukaz, etc. It is noticeable that you are capable of getting things done. What do you think of such development or something similar along that line? Sincerely, Novelbank 00:45, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

Thank you for your suggestion. It sounds like a good idea and I may be willing to lend my support and effort to it. If you are willing to help, the good beginning would be to start collecting literature and sources on this subject. A final decision about what should go in an article like that can only be made when we asses what sources we have available and how reliable they are. Once that is established, the next should be the easy part of actually writing on this topic. That having been said however, I would be insincere if I pretended that there are no problems around this issue. As you have probably noticed, this encyclopedia has far higher level of tolerance towards Russian nationalists than towards anybody else and currently my time here is almost exclusively occupied by mediations and attempts to remove POV from multiple articles. As well, I am in the middle of my project at Ukrainian Wiki. Once I am done with that and the mediations move along, I will be glad to help full-time. But I really like that idea and would be willing to commit myself to it if the burden of researching and writing it can be shared. --Hillock65 02:10, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

Sounds good! I'll try to find time this weekend to look closely on the subject. For me the most attractive part is the modern language issues in independent Ukraine.

Probably I should be honest right away, and acknowledge that writing is not my top skill (especially looking over your writing of Depardieu). Having said that, I will do what I'm capable to do. In general, I'm familiar with English wikipedia. I noticed they keep you busy with the discussions over discussions, etc. That's actually the reason I tought it would be more productive to work from scratch on a new and more valuable article. So, let's say, the next time I bother you I'll came with a list of sources, which may be in couple of days. Best, Novelbank 06:42, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

Request for Mediation

A request for mediation has been filed with the Mediation Committee that lists you as a party. The Mediation Committee requires that all parties listed in a mediation must be notified of the mediation. Please review the request at Misplaced Pages:Requests for mediation/Podilsko-Voskresenska Line, and indicate whether you agree or refuse to mediate. If you are unfamiliar with mediation, please refer to Misplaced Pages:Mediation. There are only seven days for everyone to agree, so please check as soon as possible. — Alex 02:49, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

Rusyns

The reverts that you say to be dubious are just restoration of neutral point of view: : I reverted the edit of AndriyK because in this edit, he removed all the information about the point of view, that hutsuls are carpatho-rusyns. I think that, in order to prevent the non-neutrality, we should include both points of view. Boikos don't only live in Ukraine, but also in Poland. Well, I made this change only to be coherent with history: in 1910 the western-slavic people in Carpathian Ruthenia was called "Ruthenians" and their entonym was "Rusyn". There were nobody counted as Ukrainian in Hungary in those times. (Ukrainophile movements in Carpathian Ruthenia were founded in the 1930's)

Forgot to sign Rusyn 21:26, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

Request for Mediation

A Request for Mediation to which you are a party has been accepted. You can find more information on the mediation subpage, Misplaced Pages:Requests for mediation/Podilsko-Voskresenska Line. For the Mediation Committee, ^demon This message delivered by MediationBot, an automated bot account operated by the Mediation Committee to open new mediation cases. If you have questions about this bot, please contact the Mediation Committee directly.

RfC

I was wondering if you had a chance to read this latest masterpiece. Please note Personal Attacks as well as insults in English and a foreign language. I suggest this should be included in RfC as evidence of persistent Incivility and Bad Faith. Alas, I am too busy to attend to this right now. Good luck. --Hillock65 22:01, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, I posted it on there about an hour ago. — Alex 22:41, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

Good stuff. BTW I didn't have a chance to thank you for bringing this RfC up. You are obviously more knowledgeable about these procedures than I am, so I am following your lead. As you might have seen, I co-signed the request as I am also fed up with this kind of behaviour and would like it to stop. Please keep me posted of all the developments regarding this issue. Thanks. --Hillock65 23:14, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

No problem. I gave him too many chances, and just got fed up. He doesn't seem to learn. — Alex 01:54, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

• Sorry for being too emotional, sorry if I somehow offended you personally. I think we can find much in common with you. Please review the article about the battle and leave a message, what you think how we can inprove it. Thank you in advance. --Russianname 17:33, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

I didn't take any offence. I am also, sorry that revert war got out of hand, we need to stay cool no matter what. I didn't agree with anonimous editors and AlexK for removing the tag. It should have stayed. I also didn't agree with Girla who never said a word and just came to revert things. Things got out of hand, that happens. The article is protected now, let's work on the MedCab. There are a few proposals made by the moderator. Please add your ideas there. There isn't much left to agree on, just a few minor disagreements. That is all. It should take a couple of days at most. Talking is way better than revert-warring. --Hillock65 17:41, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

I think the RfC that you have started is not filled out properly. Please have a look at completed RfC. I think you need to present Evidence of trying and failing to resolve the dispute just below where I did and Novelban at #3. Provide diffs of trying to reason with KK. Also you need to put your name under Users certifying the basis for this dispute, just below my name. If there is something else, please let me know. --Hillock65 22:25, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

I used a template that was already on the page. It might be a bit out of date, but I'll ask an admin if I need to change anything. — Alex 00:23, 23 June 2007 (UTC)

Good idea. Also, please look at other RfCs and note that the list of Evidence of disputed behavior is way longer and is not restricted to one instance or one article only. I asked Novelbank about it and he listed some other RfC links at his talkpage. You may want to have a look at those. Please start adding other evidence in the appropriate section. I will start adding mine later. Seeking advice from a more exprienced user or an admin is indeed a very good idea. Thanks.--Hillock65 00:53, 23 June 2007 (UTC)

P.S. Please don't forget to sign under Users certifying the basis for this dispute after me and Novelbank. This needs to be done. --Hillock65 00:59, 23 June 2007 (UTC)

WP:NPA

Please refrain from personal remarks about me and allegations about "my friends". Either you provide solid evidence that I and KK are "friends", or you retract your statement. I also see that you again took to advertising anti-Ghirlandajo slurs above. You should be aware that similar incidents have been classified by ArbCom as harrassment and led to appropriate measures in the past. Misplaced Pages is not bound to accommodate your incivility. Take care, Ghirla 17:59, 23 June 2007 (UTC)

This is funny. I cannot see how calling a person someone's friend can be considered harassment? Is KK so bad that being included into a circle of his friends is considered harassment? That was an honest Good Faith assumption, since you always advocate for him whenever he gets in trouble. If he is so terrible and is a shame for you to be associated with, please let me know. I will add that to the RfC, it might be relevant. --Hillock65 18:19, 23 June 2007 (UTC)

Your notions of friendship are not relevant to RfC, if that RfC is genuine and not an attempt at harrassing, that is. Repeated appellations to the 2005 debacle which has been examined by three ArbComs, is harrassment. Calling KK my friend is not harrassment, but it is simply untrue and therefore better avoided. Could you refrain from speculations about my person and about my circle of personal friends? Thanks in advance, Ghirla 18:37, 23 June 2007 (UTC)

I honestly have no idea what you are talking about. What 2005 debacle? I sicerely believed he was your friend and called you so. Now that I know that you don't like to be called his friend, I will take a note. Instead of assuming Good Faith, you keep pestering me with all kinds of threats and complaints. Please limit your attacks to the appropriate pages and leave me in peace. --Hillock65 19:18, 23 June 2007 (UTC)

Request for arbitration

I have submitted a repquest for arbitration on User:Kuban kazak here. As an individual who was involved in this dispute, your participation would be appreciated. Thank you. — Alex 23:27, 24 June 2007 (UTC)