User talk:Faustian/archive3

Re: Help needed

Hello, Faustian. You have new messages at Kirill Lokshin's talk page.
Message added 02:50, 30 July 2009 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Email

I just sent you an email. Cheers! Ward3001 (talk) 16:34, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

More email

I've also sent you an email.radek (talk) 17:34, 31 July 2009 (UTC)

Poeticbent and Volhynian issues

It takes two to tango. I will try to moderate the Polish editors more, but please, you have to back down as well. Both sides are edit warring and flaming there, and escalation will only bring admin hammers on everyone. I don't think this is the way to go. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 18:05, 31 July 2009 (UTC)

Ill back off the article but I have been operating by the book there. I haven't been uncivil, I've tried discussing before reverting, etc. And my additions were all quite balanced and sourced. Only one person is being unreasoanble there.Faustian (talk) 18:07, 31 July 2009 (UTC)

Further reading

Have you had a chance to read Timothy Snyder's "To Resolve the Ukrainian Problem Once and for All: The Ethnic Cleansing of Ukrainians in Poland, 1943-47"? Seems another good article by the guy.

By the way, what do you think should be done about the Volyn article? I think a larger article on Poland vs. Ukraine should be made, with the article in question being specifically about the ethnic cleansing program in volhynia. Was galicia not separate, OUN-M territory and not part of the actual cleansing but just a continuation of the violence?Львівське (talk) 02:10, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

The OUN-M only had strength among emigres, in Zakarpatia and - before its members were wiped there - in central Ukraine (Olena Teliha, and even Kiev's wartime mayor belonged to the OUN-M); it was wiped out in Volyn by the OUN-B when they left from Galicia, which had been their base.Faustian (talk) 02:29, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

An offtopic question about Volyn

Hi Faustian, I'm back to English wiki for a while and it's good to see you're here. I have one issue with the WW2 Polish-Ukrainian problems that I can never fully understand, I have some theories but I would appreciate to hear your opinion. I'm not putting it forward in any article's page, as this is obviously an original research.

Before WW2, particularly in the late 1930s, Poland had this assimilationistic policy towards the ethnic minorities, that in Galicia demonstrated itself in closing down schools, churches, sending Polish settlers etc. However in Volyn itself, Polish administration under Henryk Józewski, sometimes even considered to be a ukrainofile, was rather liberal and peaceful. At the same time (or in fact just a few years earlier) across the border millions were dying due to the artificial hunger.

Polish pre-war policies are often presented as the background of the later enmity and hidden hatred that culminated in Volyn massacre. How this comes that Ukrainans would hate and murder Poles but not Russians ? How is it possible that many Ukrainians would support Soviet Union even if millions died in Holodomor. And why did the massacre happen in Volyn, where Józewski tried to promote peaceful coexistence of Poles and Ukrainians ?

Can you understand this ?

--Lysy^talk 14:23, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

RfC

Please see Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Rorschach test images. SlimVirgin ^{talk|contribs} 16:25, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

Operational name of ethnic cleansing in Volyn

Do you know of any operational or codenames used by the OUN/UPA for what they carried out in Volyn?--Львівське (talk) 22:53, 8 August 2009 (UTC)

Haven't heard of any.Faustian (talk) 01:28, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

Slight issues with Burds' wording

Sorry for polluting your user space. I'll understand if you do not wish to continue this discussion. I moved it here' because it's marginally related to the article. So, here is some copy-pasted text from the article's talk page:

And how do you like this: "In Snyder's scenario, the slaughter of ethnic Poles in Volhynia drove Polish reprisals against ethnic Ukrainians in Poland. By the end of 1944, there were hundreds of thousands of dead, hundreds of destroyed settlements--products of ethnic violence which markedly expanded the casualties of the war in the east. The seeming inability of ethnic Poles and ethnic Ukrainians to live together peacefully drove state policy after the war. By autumn 1944, Stalin had ordered the forced deportation of all ethnic Poles from western Ukraine, in a formal trade for all ethnic Ukrainians from southeastern Poland." or that Galicia was "awarded to Poland, herself newly independent from Russia". This guy should make a career as a wikipedia editor, he is so careless with words ;) But indeed, he seems to have an excellent academic record, which makes me even more disappointed :( --Lysy^talk 15:32, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

In addition to being the ruling party, the Endeks had militant thugs going around beating Ukrainians (and Jews) and vandalizing property. This isn't very controversial. I don't see your other quotes as that unrealistic. Hundreds of thousands of dead" is a high estimate but other sources give such an estimate. Inability of Ukrainians and Poles to live together peacefully seems to have driven state policy after the war. Galicia was indeed after World War I awarded to Poland, itself (at least a good part of it) newly independent from Russia. What's the problem with those quotes?Faustian (talk) 22:22, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

OK, it's the nuances, visible to a Pole, suggesting that he may have a ... slightly Russian POV (sic!). Maybe he's not even aware of it ;) --Lysy^talk 04:16, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

So here are my problems explained. Maybe he's just being careless but for a serious historian dealing with such subjects it is rather strange. I know that both Snyder and decent Polish historians are very careful with their words, as they're aware how easily it is to misinterpret them. "Hundreds of thousands of Ukrainians killed in Poland (by Poles)" - this is of course a very extreme estimate, and you can probably find such figures in publications of Ukrainian nationalistic or communist authors only. In the same review he dismissed such results but here, he's using them. Of course he does not explicitly mention Ukrainian victims in Poland here, but the sequence of the sentences suggests it to a reader. This impression is additionally strenghtened by using "in the east (of Poland?)" wording. What is the purpose of suddenly adding "in the east" in a review that obviously refers to the East European war theatre ? Now claiming that Stalin's deportations of Poles were motivated by his desire for peace is rather bold or naive. Forced resettlements of different nations in the Soviet Union were nothing new to him, and he used it primarily as a punishment instrument. Also, he simply did not want Poles in the Soviet Union, as he knew their passion for communism. For this reason, plus the fact that Poland needed settlers to populate the territories acquired from Germany, he also deported Poles from Belarus and Lithuania, where there were no such dramatic tensions. Galicia was actually not "awarded" to Poland but reclaimed or won by Poland. As you know, the Austrians were inclined to rather "award" it to Ukraine and it required a lot of effort of the Poles, both military and political, to get control over it. Poland was not "newly independent from Russia" but from Germany. Russia was in the chaos of the revolution in that time, and there was no Russian military presence in the area, but German. Or in the broader context, Poland regained its independence from Austria, Germany and Russia. And of course Galicia was not independent from Russia but from Austria. And not "newly independent". Poland has much longer history than Russia and much longer than 19th century. Probably he's just being careless, leaving room for misinterpretations, but then, should we be quoting him ? --Lysy^talk 05:40, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

I quite clearly interpreted the 100,000s to mean both Ukrainians and Poles. Some of the other issues were basically simplifications in line with the fact that Burds' brief article wasn't about those events, not carelessness. I don't think that Burds was unaware that Germany and Austria also controlled parts of Poland. But Russia had Poland's capital and I believe more Polish territory than either of the other two powers. Poland was indeed awarded Galicia by the League of Nations, after its military and political maneouvering. I've read other historians referring to this as having been awarded. The Austrians were not inclined to award Galicia to Ukraine - they officially handed Galicia over to the Ukrainian representatives in the Austrian government who represented the majority of the population of East Galicia (the last Austrian governor handed power over to the head of the Ukrainian politicians) As for Stalin - I have not read enough about him and the population transfers to be certain of his motivations but likely all of those factors played a role.Faustian (talk) 13:37, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

I know. However it is possible to read it either way - this is what I call careless. If you know history then you do not need to read it. If you don't know it, you may easily misunderstand what he writes. Anyway, I see I will not convince you :) --Lysy^talk 17:08, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

Burds' article was in a review for historians, not a work for a general audience.Faustian (talk) 17:11, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

Yes, nevertheless, he is not a journalist and he should be precise with his words. Anyway a book review is not a good source. It would be much better to refer to the book itself, not its review. --Lysy^talk 17:49, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

It's written by an expert in the field and includes facts as well as the expert's' opinion. And it appears on Harvard's website. It seems pretty reliable to be. If it were a book review in some magazine or newspaper written by a nonexpert this would be a different story.Faustian (talk) 17:52, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

An expert can have his opinions not necessarily backed by research. The fact that an opinion is voiced by an academic does not make it a quality source. Have you seen sources like this in any serious publications ? Two experts can discuss an issue, they can disagree but the fact that they are experts does not make both of them right. In this case, the best we can do is attribute an opinion, but not seriously consider a book review as a source reference. Of course we have both seen many worse than that across wikipedia. --Lysy^talk 18:01, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

He cites facts in his review (the events of the pogroms, attribted to the Papal representative).Faustian (talk) 18:06, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

One pogrom. --Lysy^talk 18:14, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

Which was described as one example of something that was occurring extensively.Faustian (talk) 18:16, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

Which is not sourced :) I think we should best find some sources to support the many pogroms. I do not doubt there were more. --Lysy^talk 18:35, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

Well, he is himself a source. It's his words, published in a book review by Harvard. Faustian (talk) 18:49, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

We are running in circles now, right ? Have you seen such "sources" being refered to in any serious publication ? --Lysy^talk 18:59, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

I found a "pacification" action mentioned in Sowa's book (page 51). According to Sowa, the Polish pacification action of September-November 1930 is still awaiting (as of 1998) a fuller research. He writes that according to Polish data, 450 Ukrainian villages were included in the action which resulted in no deaths, and according to Ukrainian sources, the punitive expeditions were directed to 750 villages and 7 to 35 people died in the effect. After analysing Ukrainian newspapers published in Poland (and state censored) in 1930, Sowa tends to believe the Ukrainian sources on the figures. --Lysy^talk 19:30, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

Interesting. Those actions (presumably by the government) were in addition to urban riots by mobs such as the one described in Burds.Faustian (talk) 20:08, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

Yes, this one was not only state sponsored, but organized with the police. A similar action was organized again in 1938/39. I was not able to find anything about the numerous riots, though, so far. --Lysy^talk 20:14, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

Your posts

Hi Faustian, please avoid making comments about legal issues, especially in posts that give real names and allude to people's employers. [1] Focus on content only and on Wikipedia's policies. Otherwise the talk pages become so contentious, the arguments about content get lost. Cheers, SlimVirgin ^{talk|contribs} 20:44, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

Sure. I think I've said all ther eis to say on that topic anyways, at least for now. However the other perosn alrewady gave their rela name in all the mass media; it's hardly a secret. I would never out anybody.Faustian (talk) 20:47, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

Okay, thanks for agreeing to that. Sorry to have to post the request. SlimVirgin ^{talk|contribs} 21:12, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

Hey Faustian I see you are continuing with the legal threats taking over from were Ward3001 left off...I think this sums it up: 'I think they feel insecure about their profession.' [2]

Oh and here are a few more you can add to your law suits: some pillow cases [3] or maybe some buttons [4] the tee shirt even mentions the most common answers [5] There is even stamps, dog clothing, and aprons. [6] Cheers Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 05:15, 14 August 2009 (UTC)

1. No, they are insecure about people being harmed.
2. I never made legal threats, and haven't mentioned legal issues for days.
3. Someone's a lot more likely to get more info and to use it off wikipedia than from an obscure t-shirt company. And if something bad happens, whom will it be traced back to? Wikipedia, and the guy so overcome by his narcisism that he foolishly put his name to what he did. Morevoer you've posted stuff on other tests as well (the Wisconsin). The latter test is used frequently in evaluating the effects the head injury in cases where people might be motivated to cheat in order to get back to work (i.e., bus drivers, airline pilots, regular drivers, athletes). Good luck if something goes wrong.Faustian (talk) 13:40, 14 August 2009 (UTC)

Ah yes thank you. I wish you luck coping in the information age.

I think a law suit will get the last two people on planet earth to see these images though. That will be about the only good it does.Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 14:16, 14 August 2009 (UTC)

Yes, posting cheat sheets to useful and used tests is according to you legitimate because it's the "information age." Amazing the excuses some people come up with to justify their antisocial behavior. Thanks for sharing what you hope will save you from a lawsuit, though.Faustian (talk) 14:23, 14 August 2009 (UTC)

A good tip Faustian is that if your description of legal repercussions has the effect, or the desired effect, of making some change to someones point of view due to fear of legal repercussions that it is both inappropriate and damaging to the concept of neutrality. Arguments should be swayed through reason, not intimidation. I don't know about you but most of us are not lawyers or experts in law and as such should not be using Wikipedia to debate the repercussions that really are the foundation's concern. I suggest you take your legal theories off of Wikipedia to avoid getting blocked. Chillum 14:30, 14 August 2009 (UTC)

So now you are threatening me. Good work. I stated I wouldn't be writing about that stuff anymore and wasn't doing so for a few days. I merely responded to James' comments. Of course not a word from you to him. Legal problems are every editors' concern.Faustian (talk) 14:34, 14 August 2009 (UTC)

Looks like society however agrees with access to this information. Look at discuss on Wikipedia, at the NYTs, the Globe and Mail, Fox News etc.Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 14:36, 14 August 2009 (UTC)

You posted cheat sheets for other tests also. And the wikipedia page does go way beyond what the NY Times included.Faustian (talk) 14:54, 14 August 2009 (UTC)

(ec)It is not a threat Faust, it is a warning(sorry about the cliché). I have no intention of taking any action myself. I am just pointing out what will happen if you continue. I am not making this up, see WP:No legal threats. I will also point out that while legal threats are not allowed, threats of blocking if a user continues to act inappropriately are in fact allowed here. I see James defending his position, not making any threats. You are the only person saying what basically amounts to "not doing what I say could lead you to being sued". This will get you blocked, stop now so we can avoid this. I don't think anyone here wants to start seeing our debaters blocked because they cannot follow our basic ground rules. Chillum 14:42, 14 August 2009 (UTC)

Faustian, I don't think Chillum's words were meant as a threat, but merely a friendly note of caution - WP:NLT is fairly strictly enforced most of the time. Legal problems actually aren't supposed to be our concern at all (as editors, anyway - that is why we have a general counsel).

James, Faustian has heeded Slim's advice and not posted anything pertaining to legal issues for some time except to respond to you.

• Can we all agree to leave this issue aside? Thanks, both. –xeno^talk 14:41, 14 August 2009 (UTC)

Some time? This is from just a short while ago. I will admit that the legal intimidation has become more "veiled", but that is not much of an improvement. Chillum 14:43, 14 August 2009 (UTC)

Yeah, I responded. If he hadn't chosen to continue the conversation, I wouldn't have written anything.Faustian (talk) 14:54, 14 August 2009 (UTC)

I didn't notice that. I think we should all just drop the talk about legal issues. –xeno^talk 14:45, 14 August 2009 (UTC)

I will gladly drop the issue if it does not continue to reoccur. The whole subject it outside the scope of our project and needs to be handled through our legal counsel or OTRS. Chillum 14:46, 14 August 2009 (UTC)

Agreed. –xeno^talk 14:47, 14 August 2009 (UTC)

Agreed Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 14:48, 14 August 2009 (UTC)

I had already agreed. If someone wants to continue the conversation I might reciprocate, but will not initiate further discussions on my own. I've said all that needs to be said for now.Faustian (talk) 14:54, 14 August 2009 (UTC)

Please Faustian, don't reciprocate in the form of anything that could be seen as legally intimidating. Reciprocate by saying that such discussion is not appropriate here. So far this debate has not degenerating into editors getting blocked, lets keep it that way. Chillum 15:04, 14 August 2009 (UTC)

Warning again

Would appreciate that you remove the threats here [7] Making conjectures and what else psychologist should complain about does not belong on the Rorschach page.Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 16:39, 25 August 2009 (UTC)

You brought up the article and the complaints against you so you shouldn't complain about someone talking about complaints.Faustian (talk) 22:53, 25 August 2009 (UTC)

He brought up something that in your opinion was not on-topic for that talk page, so that makes you entitled to bring up things that are even less on-topic, such as what, in your opinion, he should be "gone after" for? --LjL (talk) 22:57, 25 August 2009 (UTC)

Did you go on his talk page to criticize his off-topic posts which took up more space than my brief comment did?Faustian (talk) 23:36, 25 August 2009 (UTC)

Your posts

Faustian, some of your comments are sailing close to the wind; for example, the second post in this diff. If you comment again in a way that a reasonable person could interpret as a threat, or an inappropriate comment about a person's real-life situation, you risk being blocked without further warning.

What is needed is for all the editors on that page to stop talking about the offwiki issues, and to focus only on the content of the article. If you want to discuss whether the images should be there, the best place is the RfC talk page, which is still open. SlimVirgin ^{talk|contribs} 23:25, 25 August 2009 (UTC)

There is also Talk:Rorschach test/images, which everyone has forgot about, but it's still there. (I'm kind of not fond of posting in those places because my understanding is that the issue has gone well past publication of the images, to the point where that's a minor detail compared to the text) --LjL (talk) 23:28, 25 August 2009 (UTC)

I hope you also warned him not to post irrelevant stuff. BTW the comment you refer to was directed at his threat to perform harmful actions outside wikipedia, not at his wikipedia editing (practicing psychology without a license on his patients, putting them at risk). This is analogous to him saying, "I'm going to rob a bank tomorrow", and me saying, "Someone might report you for doing so." Obviously if he didn't post irrelevent stuff I wouldn't have responded.Faustian (talk) 23:35, 25 August 2009 (UTC)

Your posts

Thank you Faustian for your continued intelligent posts on the talk pages of the Rorschach, that seem to avoid the posturing and preening of so many others. Also, in my view, your posts are never arrogant or condescending. And thank you also for sticking to your principles in the face of very long and concerted efforts to discourage you. It is unfortunate that you, like me, are in the minority and that some editors choose so easily to take offence where, I am sure, none was intended. Sincerely. Martinevans123 (talk) 23:33, 25 August 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for your support!Faustian (talk) 23:35, 25 August 2009 (UTC)

August 2009

Welcome to Wikipedia. Although everyone is welcome to contribute constructively to the encyclopedia, we would like to remind you not to attack other editors, as you did on Talk:Rey-Osterrieth Complex Figure. Please comment on the contributions and not the contributors. Take a look at the welcome page to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia. Thank you. Try to avoid internet diagnosing like here http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Rey-Osterrieth_Complex_Figure&diff=310082842&oldid=310080368 Doc James is not a sociopath. You have also called him narcassistic. This is not how to resolve disputes. Literaturegeek | T@1k? 03:23, 26 August 2009 (UTC)

I depersonalized the comment. As for his sociopathy - you are entitled to your opinion.Faustian (talk) 03:37, 26 August 2009 (UTC)

Oh for God's sake Faustian please stop attacking people over what should be a purely academic debate! I find it shocking how much lenience you have been shown and I think it has done you little good. Being a psychologist(which I am sincerely starting to doubt) does not give you the right to diagnose other Wikipedians as sociopaths. If a Wikipedian wants your diagnosis they can contact you outside of Wikipedia and ask for it, and you certainly should not announce your diagnosis on this website. Chillum 03:27, 26 August 2009 (UTC)

I depersonalized it. It's sad how you don't object to people actually causing concrete harm in the real world but get upset about that.Faustian (talk) 03:35, 26 August 2009 (UTC)

Thank you for refactoring your comment. I will not rehash the whole "harm" issue, it is clear we disagree on that. What I will say is that you need to depersonalize your entire attitude towards this debate. You are becoming increasingly hostile over that last several weeks, just look at the history of warnings from various users on your talk page. Chillum 03:37, 26 August 2009 (UTC)

Or maybe after Ward's been driven off it's my turn?Faustian (talk) 03:38, 26 August 2009 (UTC)

Actually Faustian each of those warnings was triggered by an action of yours. Chillum 03:56, 26 August 2009 (UTC)

And when my action was triggered by someone else's action you warn only me.Faustian (talk) 04:39, 26 August 2009 (UTC)

Yes, welcome to Wikipedia, Faustian. Your comments on that page seem perfectly fair and reasonable and do not seem to me to constitute "personal attacks". I find it shocking how other editors, who coincidentaly seem to disagree with your point of view, can choose to be so condescending to such a valued and experienced editor. Martinevans123 (talk) 21:41, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

Wikiquette Alerts

Hello Faustian. Please be aware that a User has raised a new Alert related to some of your recent edits. It can be viewed here. You are able to respond to the Alert. Dolphin51 (talk) 03:58, 26 August 2009 (UTC)

Block

Despite my warning to you earlier, [8] you posted another serious attack on the same editor just a couple of hours later, [9] so I have blocked you for 24 hours. You're free to appeal the block to another administrator. SlimVirgin ^{talk|contribs} 05:02, 26 August 2009 (UTC)

I've already depersonalized that comment prior to your block. What do you think of this behavior [10]:

Docjames tries to provoke a response and admits to doing so: [11] "I was being fascious, just yanking your chain Fasutian. Nobody in my profession uses this test not because we couldn't but because we have no need for it."Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 00:44, 26 August 2009 (UTC) When he gets a response he comes on here, and issues a wikiquette alert without telling me, after I had depersonalized my comment in response to his provocation. He seems to be as clearly as worthy of a wikiquette warning as I am.Faustian (talk) 04:45, 26 August 2009 (UTC)

You were warned earlier about personal attacks, yet you went on to post the comments you did, and they were not isolated remarks; you've been posting aggressively about this issue for several weeks. I suggest you take the time out to decide whether you want to edit that page. If you do, you need to stick to content issues. SlimVirgin ^{talk|contribs} 05:16, 26 August 2009 (UTC)

But I pulled those back and didn't add other ones before your block. Moreover, the specific case for which I was blocked was in response to a provocation as described above, with diffs. The one who admitted to provoking was not blocked. This hardly seems fair.Faustian (talk) 05:19, 26 August 2009 (UTC)

I filled the Wikialert before I posted the above response to your quote. Anyway best of luck. I think the consensus is clear. I am off to edit content that I find more interesting.

I got involved with this not because I am a Nazi, Sociopathe, or Narcissist as I have been called over the last couple of months but because I beleive in freedom of information and people being able to discuss scientific ideas.Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 05:21, 26 August 2009 (UTC)

...By leaking cheat sheets (questions and answers) of tests used to help people.Faustian (talk) 05:23, 26 August 2009 (UTC)

(ec) First, the issue of provocation is irrelevant; we are not children. Secondly, you didn't really retract the comment; the "retraction" was almost as bad. [12] I have also asked James not to respond to any personal issues in future but to go straight to an admin. [13] [14] What is needed now is for everyone on that page to focus on content, not on each other. As I said, you're free to appeal the block to another admin, but I don't intend to undo this block, because I see it as long overdue. SlimVirgin ^{talk|contribs} 05:26, 26 August 2009 (UTC)

How can I appeal a block when I can't edit others' talk pages?Faustian (talk) 05:28, 26 August 2009 (UTC)

You can post {{unblock|your reason here}} on this page. SlimVirgin ^{talk|contribs} 05:29, 26 August 2009 (UTC)

And see Wikipedia:Appealing a block SlimVirgin ^{talk|contribs} 05:33, 26 August 2009 (UTC)

Thanks. You could have at least just banned me from the Rorschach for 24 hours so I could make contributions elsewhere.Faustian (talk) 06:14, 26 August 2009 (UTC)

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy).

Faustian (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

---

Request reason:

Request for unblock for a slip-up

Decline reason:

Provoked or unprovoked, you were warned that another attack would result in a block. Refactoring the comment afterwards is no excuse. TNXMan 14:33, 26 August 2009 (UTC)

---

If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.

I have had a clean record for many years, with over 5,000 edits; often I have served as a mediator on some very contentious issues and in doing so have been praised by both sides of such issues (see barnstars here: [15]). I'm not perfect, and I have lost my cool a bit in response to a provocation. I did depersonalize the comment for which I was blocked prior to the block. Here is the admission that his post that I responded to was a provocation: [16] "I was being fascious, just yanking your chain Fasutian. Nobody in my profession uses this test not because we couldn't but because we have no need for it."Doc James (talk · contribs I was warned that I may be blocked for more comments and I did comment in a personal way - but again, I then depersonalized it.

I will not engage in such behavior now. I would like to make edits on other articles and participate in a civilized discussion and would prefer that my record not be tarnished by this mistake.Faustian (talk) 05:50, 26 August 2009 (UTC)

I am sorry it came to this, because while I admit I sometimes rejoice in seeing people who badly deserve it being blocked (yes, I know blocks aren't supposed to be a punishment, but), that wasn't the case here. An admin will know better, but I don't think that, even if you are unblocked early, that can result in an entry not appearing in your logs. But did you really have to instist with the legal-ish provocations? --LjL (talk) 12:21, 26 August 2009 (UTC)

Thank you for your support. Although I disagree deeply with you, I also respect you and see where you are coming from.Faustian (talk) 12:25, 26 August 2009 (UTC)

I also think this ban was wholly unnecessary. (Oh and I was told categorically just a very short while ago that Wikipedia does not use "punishments" only "administrative tools" and I even actually believed that, until now). Martinevans123 (talk) 13:02, 26 August 2009 (UTC)

DocJames' talk page isn't on my watchlist but I noticed something troubling. This was slimvirgin's warning to me[17]:

"Faustian, some of your comments are sailing close to the wind; for example, the second post in this diff. If you comment again in a way that a reasonable person could interpret as a threat, or an inappropriate comment about a person's real-life situation, you risk being blocked without further warning."

Yet on DocJames' talk page he wrote [18]:

"Hi James, I've just warned Faustian that he risks facing admin action if he continues to comment on your personal or professional life. If he does it again, I'd appreciate it if you'd let me or another admin know, so we can take action. If you avoid commenting yourself on these issues, or responding in any way, it will help to take the heat out of the situation. SlimVirgin talk|contribs 23:28, 25 August 2009 (UTC)"

Which seems like much more of a direct warning. It is possible that I would not have made the comment that I did (which, once again, I depersonalized prior to being blocked anyways), had I recieived such a direct statement. I'm assuming good faith that slimvirgin wasn't trying to trap me, but the appearance is certainly unfortunate.Faustian (talk) 12:33, 26 August 2009 (UTC)

"You risk being blocked without further warning" seems very clear to me. It's possible that, prior to the block, SlimVirgin had already become of the opinion that it was your behavior, and not James's, to blame (or at least more to blame) - which may explain the different tone of the comment on James's page - but that doesn't mean he tried to "trap" you when he stated plainly that you would be blocked if you went on.

Anyway I believe the basic issue is that you're upset at James because you believe (rightly or wrongly, that's not the point now) that, being a doctor, he violated professional ethics by posting test materials and such; obviously, violating professional ethics is something that you take seriously. But the problem is that this is Wikipedia, not the Ethics Board for your or his profession... His alleged violations of codes of ethics don't count here, and they don't justify your harsh treatment of him. It's as if I treated badly someone on Wikipedia because they did something terrible to me in real life: without disputing whether what they did really was terrible, my treating them badly on Wikipedia wouldn't be justifiable.

I'll stop now and I hope you don't see this as an undue intrusion, but right now all I'm trying to do is to explain, not blame. --LjL (talk) 13:22, 26 August 2009 (UTC)

Thanks, I do not see it as an intrusion. I agree that the statement to me is indeed clear - there is a risk - but that is not the same as to say "I will block you" which seems to be the message left on docjames' talk page - "If he does it again, I'd appreciate it if you'd let me or another admin know, so we can take action." If someone else blocked me I would have had no issue with slimvirgin. But she blocked me, after telling me about risk and someone else about what she will do. It just look to me like she wasn't completely open about her intentions. I would appreciate a clarification from her. Whatever the reason, Slimvirgin ought to have been more careful in what she said, how she said it, and what she did. I think that the actions of posting test questions and answers to tests that are all about helping people (such as through accurate diagnoses) is morally reprehensible no matter who does it (I am talking about the actions, not the person). But yes, in my opinion such an action is even worse when a physician does it - other people might not be as aware, other people may not supposedly dedicate their careers to helping others, and of course the physician took an oath to do no harm, etc. In my opinion, whatever the principle might be, once it clashes with the fact that people are placed at risk of harm, that risk becoms more important than the principle. I think (and hope) that this is why the wikipedia policy on biographies of living people is incongruent with several other policies (although a cynic might say that situation exists strictly for legal reasons). So I guess that's the one thing that angers me - people beign placed at risk of concrete harm.Faustian (talk) 14:11, 26 August 2009 (UTC)

Response to Defending the Public Domain

This comment is a classic straw man argument meant to misrepresent the side that wishes not to include the questions and answers to the test. The author writes "But we have to decide whether we believe in a society where most people are only allowed to know some few things that more enlightened heads decide are useful enough to them to justify any potential dangers and social problems they might create." Of course I and most people would agree that most people should not be forced to know "some few things ." The problem is that Mike Serfas provides a false misrepresentation of what the minority wants. We do not want " society where most people are only allowed to know some few things." We want a very narrow and specific limitation - no cheat sheets (questions and answers) to tests that are used to help people. Other than test questions and answers the more encyclopedic information the better! Is that clear enough? We do not advocate that "only psychologists know psychology" as falsely claimed, only that test questions and test answers ought not be leaked. It's as simple and limited as that. Leaked questions and answers to psychology tests make articles on those tests no more encyclopedic than leaked questions and answers on the SAT or some other test would make articles on those subjects "encyclopedic." A "democratic sense of equality" brought about by leaking psych tests is no different than one for medical licensing exams ("why shouldn't everybody be able to practice medicine? let's leak all the questions ans answers..."), etc.

It's rather difficult to engage in a dialogue when the other side misrepresents the minority position to such a huge degree, and then others vote or make decisions against this minority based on the misrepresentations rather than the actual position.Faustian (talk) 19:40, 26 August 2009 (UTC)

Agree 100%. Martinevans123 (talk) 11:23, 27 August 2009 (UTC)

Well, I still haven't got a real answer to my old question of how is, for example (an example I use as it's backed up by a source), describing color responses in the Rorschach - of, for that matter, just explaining there is a concept of color responses - not something that will skew the test results just as much as knowing the "answers" (besides, puh-lease) or seeing the images. The frequency of color responses is coded, and I don't see how that code won't become rubbish if the examinee knows in advance they are "supposed" to sometimes respond based on color.

If what I said above makes sense, then it's not true that you'd be happy with removing "questions and answers", unless by "questions and answers" you mean "just about anything describing psychological tests except accessory information such as their history".

And I've seen a few people (maybe not you specifically, don't remember) saying there is much more in the article that should be removed to "avoid harm" aside from the actual images and descriptions of them.

--LjL (talk) 12:05, 27 August 2009 (UTC)

LjL is quite right if she remembers me as suggesting that not just the images, but also any list of popular responses (or even any interpretations, even made-up ones) might skew a subject's answers if and when they later took the test. And sorry, I'm not excpeting to ever be able to produce any evidence for that suggestion Martinevans123 (talk) 13:01, 27 August 2009 (UTC)

No, I was taking an objection to displaying popular responses for granted; I was going further and saying that once you start talking about form, location, color, etc, you are skewing the subject's answers just as much. --LjL (talk) 13:34, 27 August 2009 (UTC)

I have no objection to the other stuff, just specifically test questions and answers (meaning, allegedly popular responses, and the images). People are going to see colors on the cards anyways. I'm reformulating my paragraph and pasting it on the Rorschach talkpage.Faustian (talk) 13:39, 27 August 2009 (UTC)

Unless they suffer from some kind of blindness, people are going to see everything there in on the cards; but that's very different from noticing or paying attention or reporting it to the examiner. I have trouble imagining how telling or not telling a subject: "color is an aspect of response that is scored, and lack of [or abundance of, just example] color responses is indicative of problems" would make no difference. I think it would, and the source I have just cited agrees.

So, considering that you all agree that you cannot provide evidence of harm, which means we have to base it all on speculation... I don't see a single valid reason why giving the above-mentioned information would skew the test less than giving other kinds of information (such as showing the cards or the common responses). --LjL (talk) 13:48, 27 August 2009 (UTC)

Saying that normal people see an X amount of color responses is much more abstract than saying "people see a bat on this card and then showing the card and thus less harmful. An analogy: saying that 30 items of a multiple choice test are A is not the same thing as reproducing item 1 and giving the correct answr of A. As for "evidence of harm", it depends on how you formulate the question. There is no doubt within the field that the test is useful (only controversy is the in how many settings it is useful). So rendering it useless is harmful. Is there any doubt that giving out questions and answers to a test makes it less effective?Faustian (talk) 14:11, 27 August 2009 (UTC)

I'd suggest that the term "speculation" may cover many things - "idle speculation", "speculation as to the result in a hypothesised experiment" and even (in my view more relevant in this case) "professional advice given knowing that firm evidence can never be produced". Martinevans123 (talk) 14:24, 27 August 2009 (UTC)

Uhm, yes, there is a doubt: in fact, there is no evidence that it makes it less effective. You've stated such evidence cannot be (ethically) provided, and I'll just accept that as true, but the fact remains that there is no evidence. You may say it's pretty reasonable to suspect it makes it less effective, and I can agree, but for what I'm concerned, when there's no actual evidence, there's always a doubt (and sometimes there's a doubt even when there's evidence).

As for color response, you can say it doesn't matter, but then why does the Weiner source that I provided claim that it does matter? I say that if I tell a test subject that color responses are expected, they'll tend to give a lot more of them than if I hadn't told them anything, and that will screw up the coding. --LjL (talk) 18:26, 27 August 2009 (UTC)

Well, Klopfer and Davidson (1962) make it pretty clear that procedurally, actually evening mentioning colour is a last resort, as part of the "Analogy" or "Testing the Limits" phases of the dialogue. The whole ethos seems to be for the administrator to be as undirective as possible. But maybe techniques have changed since then? Martinevans123 (talk) 21:00, 27 August 2009 (UTC)

Maybe they have, but maybe they haven't. If they haven't, then "mentioning color" may indeed be problematic. Doesn't that mean we should take that mention out of our article, under the psychologists' reasonings? Why limit oneselves to taking out the inkblots and common responses? --LjL (talk) 21:38, 27 August 2009 (UTC)

Well, before going any further I'd want more information on the current way the procedure is administered. I had thought that the bland descriptions of each of the plates were harmless enough. But, of course, I'd be prepared to take advice from those who actually use the test. (I do hope my tendency to scarcasm has not become infectious). Martinevans123 (talk) 21:45, 27 August 2009 (UTC)

I would never; your sarcasm is confusing enough to cover both of us without me adding any. I'm merely wondering whether removing what psychologists want removed actually removes the claimed harm (it's a bit like people on the RfC who said we should only display some 3 or 5 images; how's that any better for anyone than displaying all ten?), or alternatively - with more malice - whether perhaps removing some inkblots would just be seen by the psychologists as the first step of a retreat eventually culminating in removing just about all information (including but hardly limited to "color responses") that's not just historical or ancillary. --LjL (talk) 23:26, 27 August 2009 (UTC)

I'd probably say that displaying only five would be half as harmful as displaying all ten (probably a bit less than half, given the sorry web ubiquity of Plate I). It's surprising what some people will suggest in an attempt to reach any sort of compromise. I might have even myself fallen (again) into that noble group, had I honestly thought it would do any good at this much-too-late-to-damage-consensus stage. But as we know, some protagonists have simply chosen to walk away rather than compromise professional principles with hair splitting or editorial trade-offs. Martinevans123 (talk) 23:51, 27 August 2009 (UTC)

• I'm not sure to whom you are referring with the 'angry mob & pitchforks' but you might want to amend. Someone who wants to provide detailed information about this test does not necessarily hold the motive of wanting to destroy it, even if you assert the former results in the latter... –xeno^talk 14:25, 27 August 2009 (UTC)

Okay. However a lot of those supporting including the info have stated that is their motive.Faustian (talk) 15:00, 27 August 2009 (UTC)

Granted, but be cautious not to paint everyone with the same brush. –xeno^talk 15:02, 27 August 2009 (UTC)

It seems ritual branding may be all part of the job? Martinevans123 (talk) 21:00, 27 August 2009 (UTC)

Sorry Faustian, but am off now to eat my just deserts with Ward3001. Beware of editors who appear to be domineering admins but who turn out be just domineering. Good luck. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.68.83.139 (talk) 23:47, 12 September 2009 (UTC)

Chodaczkow Wielki

Hi Faustian. I have no idea what is going on there. I have not changed my opinion, the article can be deleted, and frankly speaking, I have not been checking it since then. All the best. Tymek (talk) 21:32, 28 August 2009 (UTC)

Could you offer a comment? Someone keeps placing non-RS info into the article. Thanks!Faustian (talk) 21:41, 28 August 2009 (UTC)

I really don't know much about this issue so I can't comment that much. But you're definetly right that sources published by Nortrom are not reliable.radek (talk) 22:55, 29 August 2009 (UTC)

1RR violation at Massacres of Poles in Volhynia

Faustian, this article is under a 1RR restriction, as you can see on its Talk page at Talk:Massacres of Poles in Volhynia#Please observe the_1RR_on_this_article. You've reverted twice on 31 August. Please undo your last revert, or you may be blocked. EdJohnston (talk) 15:58, 31 August 2009 (UTC)

Sorry, I forgot! I will restore the unreliable info into the lead (I've made edits since then).Faustian (talk) 16:05, 31 August 2009 (UTC)

14th SS Division

Hi you have re added the the details about the Huta Pieniacka massacre it may be well sourced but the fact show that it was not carried out by the division see User talk:Paweł5586#14th SS Division - This is one more source, also from Polish IPN, third paragraph, Motyka wrote: Form the volunteers to SS-Galizien, Germans formed several regiments of SS police (numbers from 4 to 8). They joined to division at Spring 1944. Before that two of them 4 and 5, participated in anti guerilla actions. The source shows that the persons resp for the massacre joined the division at a later date. The sources are unreliable of dead links to external sites. Can you revert you edit to avoid an edit war . --Jim Sweeney (talk) 13:25, 2 September 2009 (UTC)

I foxed the link to the chapter by the Ukrainian Academy of Sciences. However your clarification ought to put into the article. I will work on this. I really appreciate your clarifications.Faustian (talk) 15:39, 2 September 2009 (UTC)

Also the section on the The Deschênes Commission - this has very little to do with the 14th SS article and is included in the See also section can you explain why this has been re added ? --Jim Sweeney (talk) 13:28, 2 September 2009 (UTC)

This specific section is devoted precisely to the 14th SS division, which is why it is relevent. I am not opposed to you or someone else trimming/summarizing this but since it is specifically about the 14th it deserves to be in the article in some form.Faustian (talk) 15:39, 2 September 2009 (UTC)

Re:Russian annexation of Eastern Galicia, 1914-1915

Very interesting. You know that you are allowed to nominate your own articles? I can do this for you, but as the creator, I think you know best what is the most interesting "Did you know..." hook. Feel free to link it to me once you nominate it, and I'll let you know if I have any comments. Btw, at some point, the article on Ukrainian minority in Poland could use help. Oh, and if you are still having troubles with some Polish editors on the Volhnynia issue, I would be happy to help and mediate. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 19:26, 2 September 2009 (UTC)

Thank you! I will be vacationing over the holiday and thus will not be near a computer during that time, have a few things to wrap up before I go, so if you wouldn't mind perhaps you can nominate it. Two hooks that comes to mind are "DYK that, during World War I, the Russian administration in newly annexed eastern Galicia was so zealous in trying to convert the local population from the Ukrainian Catholic to the Russian Orthodox Church that the head of the Russian Army complained that ammunition trains were being diverted to the transportation of Orthodox priests, to the detriment of the war effort." Or "DYK that from 1914 to 1915 the Russian Empire captured and attempted to integrate "eastern Galicia", the last significant territory of the medieval state of Kieven Rus". Thanks for your help!Faustian (talk) 20:55, 2 September 2009 (UTC)

The second one is better, as the first one is too long for a DYK. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 06:24, 3 September 2009 (UTC)

I've nominated it for you. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 20:29, 3 September 2009 (UTC)

Thanks!Faustian (talk) 02:13, 4 September 2009 (UTC)

DYK for Russian annexation of Eastern Galicia, 1914-1915

On September 9, 2009, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Russian annexation of Eastern Galicia, 1914-1915, which you created or substantially expanded. You are welcome to check how many hits your article got while on the front page (here's how) and add it to DYKSTATS if it got over 5,000. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

Wikiproject: Did you know? 23:22, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

A friendly note

I am watching in a disbelief the conflict between Ukrainian and Polish users. Believe me, none of you wants to fuel the conflict by complaining at the ANI/AE because the final outcome will be bad for all sides. I have learned this myself hard way. I could try to help to mediate the conflict, but unfortunately I know too little on the subject. Sorry for telling this. Best regards. Biophys (talk) 17:12, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

Thank you for the warning. However some things are simply unacceptable. I have seen what happens when unacceptable behavior is allowed to fester for too long and nothing is done about it.Faustian (talk) 18:01, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

Hey Faustian, how did this whole thing ended up, I lost track of it? Hope o.k. for both of you. You see..I'm sure that Polish and Ukrainian editors can come to the agreements without going to ANI/AE. This was totally unnecessary. I worked with Loosmrak on many different articles and my experience was very positive. He is really reasonable and O.K. guy. Of course he has a strong Polish POV on many issues but so do you. The trick is to find a middle ground but if you ever have any problems in the future just talk to me or Biophys and we will help out. Thanks and see you around.--Jacurek (talk) 05:05, 12 September 2009 (UTC)

Just learned that Loosmark got restricted for 6 months from the topic. I think it was not necessary but "Gods have spoken" and they "know" better. Anyway, for the future Faustian, remember about talking to us first instead of going to the ANI/AE. Hope all will calm down and once Loosmark is back editing this topic you guys become friendly opponents who will be able to find middle ground by discussing the subject between yourself and other people like us. All the best to you.--Jacurek (talk) 06:18, 12 September 2009 (UTC)

See Faustian[[19]] this is what I was talking about... Once you take your complaint to the Administrators (I sometimes call them "Gods":)) they will do what THEY think is right and they are not alway right, in fact I have seen them being very wrong on many occasions. Now they may examine your conduct and will possibly find something because there is always something one can find. All this could be avoided if you and Loosmark only communicated with each other instead going to the "Gods". Let's make sure that in the future we will try to solve problems ourselves unless something really critical happens, o.k.? All this was not critical and was absolutely not necessary. Cheers--Jacurek (talk) 19:28, 12 September 2009 (UTC)

I did try talking to you (and I find you to be an absolutely reasonable person) but in spite of your attempts the behavior of the other 2 editors kept escalating. Hopefully what happened to Loosmark will serve as a lesson to him and to the other editor. For the record, I do regret that it had to come to this. In the past, I allowed unacceptable behavior to fester for a long time, refusing to bring it up at ANE or ANI on principle, but after seeing the results of not doing so (the massive JoeDoe fiasco) I'm no longer willing to let things go for so long; it's better to nip things in the bud.13:28, 13 September 2009 (UTC)

Hi Faustian

Please comment. This should be very constructive.[[20]]--Jacurek (talk) 20:42, 15 September 2009 (UTC)

Mediation

A mediation case has been opened regarding the Polish-Ukranian WWII dispute. I have picked up that case. Here's the link:

Polish-Ukranian WWII disputes.

If you choose not to participate, please tell me on my talk page. Thanks! :-) Xavexgoem (talk) 00:22, 17 September 2009 (UTC)

Elections to the People's Assemblies of Western Ukraine and Western Belarus

Hi Faustian, you might want to take a look at this Elections to the People's Assemblies of Western Ukraine and Western Belarus, any changes are welcome. BTW kudos for the article on Russian annexation of Eastern Galicia. Good job! Tymek (talk) 04:40, 22 September 2009 (UTC)

Thanks - it's a good article and I made some grammar changes.Faustian (talk) 13:21, 22 September 2009 (UTC)

DYK for Western Ukrainian Clergy

On October 6, 2009, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Western Ukrainian Clergy, which you created or substantially expanded. You are welcome to check how many hits your article got while on the front page (here's how) and add it to DYKSTATS if it got over 5,000. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

rʨanaɢ ^talk/_contribs 07:44, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

Thanks!Faustian (talk) 12:51, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

Bravo

Bravsimo! --Bandurist (talk) 01:28, 10 October 2009 (UTC)

Thank you!Faustian (talk) 02:26, 10 October 2009 (UTC)

Check out [21] Bandurist (talk) 23:43, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

Wernyhora

I just stubbed this interesting article. Perhaps you or some other Ukrainian editors would like to expand it further? --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 04:05, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

Interesting indeed. I know nothing about him but will check see what I can do eventually.Faustian (talk) 12:55, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

NowCommons: File:Tabakov.jpg

File:Tabakov.jpg is now available on Wikimedia Commons as Commons:File:Tabakov.jpg. This is a repository of free media that can be used on all Wikimedia wikis. The image will be deleted from Wikipedia, but this doesn't mean it can't be used anymore. You can embed an image uploaded to Commons like you would an image uploaded to Wikipedia, in this case: [[File:Tabakov.jpg]]. Note that this is an automated message to inform you about the move. This bot did not copy the image itself. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 07:16, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

UPA

think anything else needs to be stripped off that version? I think we should go bare-bones and then add on everything sources accurately.--Львівське (talk) 04:25, 28 October 2009 (UTC)

The article is much too long. A lot of the stuff (as was done with massacres in Volyn) needs to be in seperate articles, with a brief summary in the UPA article. The Volyn massacres section is probably a good model.12:57, 28 October 2009 (UTC)

Most of Polish biograms contains proper informations about place of born during Partitions of Poland. There wasnt country named Ukraina before 1991. There wasnt any territories named Western Ukraine, was Volhynia, Red Ruthenia, Eastern Lesser Poland, Galicia. Please calm down and use exact names--Paweł5586 (talk) 14:19, 28 October 2009 (UTC)

First references to Ukraine were in the 12th century. Just because there was no political state "Ukraine" does not mean that Ukraine did not exist (same as with Poland after the Partitions). Why don't you then go ahead and remove the fact that Joseph Conrad was "Polish-born" from the lead of that article? You basically seem to be just trying to erase the fact that he was from Ukraine. Subtelny is a reliable source and he places Kulchytsky in "Ukraine." The article states that he was born in UKraine which was at that time part of the Polish Commonwealth. This is correct. There is no need to blank infromation just beause you don't like it. Faustian (talk) 14:22, 28 October 2009 (UTC)

Considering the Ukrainian SSR existed in parallel to this conflict, to say it didn't exist before 1991 is just...ignorant.

PS: how is conrad "polish born" if he was born in russia and poland didnt exist?--Львівське (talk) 05:34, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

heads up

in case you're interested in expanding it Attack on Hrubieszów.radek (talk) 08:59, 2 November 2009 (UTC)

Thanks!Faustian (talk) 16:11, 2 November 2009 (UTC)

DYK for Ivan Naumovich

On November 10, 2009, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Ivan Naumovich, which you created or substantially expanded. You are welcome to check how many hits your article got while on the front page (here's how) and add it to DYKSTATS if it got over 5,000. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

— Jake Wartenberg 11:14, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

Thanks!Faustian (talk) 14:17, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

Yakooza...

... was most likely a Jacob Peters sock (I think you've had a run in with him before). I reported it here [22].radek (talk) 07:09, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

rusyns

how do i stop this edit war with the crazy IP user over there? --Львівське (talk) 10:07, 14 November 2009 (UTC)

Pawel

Thank you. I have rebuilt polish article: pl:Służba_Bezpeky, you can find there some interesting informations about SB organisation, methods of operation and more...--Paweł5586 (talk) 14:01, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

You're welcome. Although it may seem to you at times that I am trying to whitewash Ukrainian crimes (despite having added for example infromation about nationalist participation in the murder of 100,000s of Jews) my purpose is merely to make the Encyclopedia better, which means not only removing nonreliable or dubious information but also protecting legitimate information taken from reliable sources (such as Motyka). BTW such an approach is also good from the perspective of someone wanting to publicize Ukrainian nationalist crimes. If the sources describing the crimes are purely taken from legitimate reliable sources, then the article can not be accused of propaganda and therefore the descriptions cannot be ignored or rejected (as they would be if the articles were just based on Nortom and similar books).

There don't seem to be any heavy Ukrainian nationalists on here pushing propaganda, but if there were I'd expect the same trouble from them as I have had in the past from some Polish editors, whom I will not name here ;-) I appreciate your thanks.Faustian (talk) 14:37, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

Duchy of Belz

Possibly one of my last articles here (reason, place to discuss it). Sigh. Anyway, I wonder if there is anything that can be added from uk iwiki? --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 01:00, 22 November 2009 (UTC)

Perhaps you could find refs

For the text about Ukraine I had to remove from here: [23] (FARC reviewer complained about citation needed tags, and I couldn't find refs). --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 06:42, 4 December 2009 (UTC)

Small favour

Can you give me the right translation (interwiki?) for pl:Martynów (Ukraina)? --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 20:18, 15 December 2009 (UTC)

Martynów - town in Ivano-Frankivsk oblast Ukraine, situated on the road from Lviv to Ivano-Frankivsk, near the Dnister river, approximately 15 km from Halych.

Th town is known as the main (dzięki słynnej- don't know those words) battle of Martynowem between the Polisha nd Tatar armies that took place on June 20, 1624.Faustian (talk) 02:19, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

Bandera

The whole section of ethoviews is becoming a huge coatrack. It should only contain Bandera's own words apropos. What do you think?-Galassi (talk) 16:08, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

Hmm. Probably, but I'll think about it.Faustian (talk) 23:25, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

14th division

Hi again Faustian - nice to see you back on WikiWorld :¬)

I am beginning to feel that unless I continuously discuss on the chat page irrelevant material is going to be included and relevant is going to be dismissed. I cannot both research and keep up with the blow by blow commentary from Joodoe (wow hes only been back two months after his year ban and already I feel the weight of it)

There are so many "cite needed" and "page number" tags that refer to books in german and I only have Logusz and no german reading capability and so cannot keep up with getting the refs back to order apart from the logusz ones. Can you possibly help research the Ukrainian side of evidence needed (or supplied but needing extra info) as I cannot read or speak Ukrainian and the GOogle and babelfish translators are not good enough to keep up.

thanks

Chaosdruid (talk) 10:44, 14 February 2010 (UTC)

I'm rather busy this week. It seems that he is trying to rpovoke others into wasting a lot of time needlessly. Let him write his undecipherable stuff on the talk pages, and revert whatever edits he makes to the article that are difficult to understand or otherwise inappropriate (Original Research, edits made to "disprove" surces in the article, etc.). Or file an ANE on him, as he is clearly violating the terms of his previous year-long ban. The latter act is somewhat time-consuming (but much less time-consuming than dealing with his disruptions) and I may get to it eventually. It is not our job to make massive copy edits.Faustian (talk) 01:07, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

Any suggestions about sources names and page numbers [24] [25]? It would be nice to discuss Makivka, Krenzbackh and rest hoaxes inserted - especially a recent one. Thanks Jo0doe (talk) 08:55, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for the personal attacks.Faustian (talk) 13:35, 16 February 2010 (UTC)