Hosta

Please vote to Delete this Article in table below discussion in Voting Area Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Donetsk_People's_Republic --Ipadm (talk) 15:28, 7 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Dont be redundant please. If you mention that the organization was banned in 2007, do it on the first paragraph of the article or in the last one, but not in both, as that simply redundant.--HCPUNXKID 22:08, 8 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

it's not redundant to have a mention in the lede and then have expanded info in the history section. --Львівське (говорити) 22:10, 8 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

As I mentioned at Talk:2014 pro-Russian protests in Ukraine, I'd like to start a new summary article to deal with the vast scope of the Ukrainian crisis, and direct people to the appropriate places. I've started such a draft at Draft:2014 Ukrainian crisis, and could use your valuable help in getting it up to snuff. Please do assist in that regard. I've given my proposal more detail at the pro-Russian protests article talk page. RGloucester — ☎ 20:12, 9 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

awesome, ill try to take a look in a bit --Львівське (говорити) 20:16, 9 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• My apologies for the accidental reverts. Was having edit conflicts, because we were both editing at the same time. RGloucester — ☎ 01:02, 10 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

no problem! --Львівське (говорити) 01:03, 10 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Please stop your disruptive editing, personal attacks, and soapboxing. WP:DISRUPT Your comments are not helpful: "Which part was bombastic? Armed rebels have indeed taken the SBU building and are holding hostages and have planted explosives in the building. This is the Die Hard definition of terrorism, I don't think I exaggerated." You could perhaps refer to WP:TERRORIST.

Lurking in the Talk pages of articles that you don't like, and insulting everyone who don't think like you is not a good way to advance your ideas. Just my 2 cents.

Anyway, I apologize if I insulted you in any way. I will stop replying to your posts. Have a nice day.Cmoibenlepro (talk) 14:48, 10 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I fail to see how stating facts is either disruptive, or "lurking in talk pages of articles I don't like". I'm not insulted, I'm just confused how you arrived at these bizarre conclusions. Is this because I pointed you you appear to be an WP:SPA? Just calling a spade a spade.--Львівське (говорити) 14:49, 10 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Ok then forget it. I forgive you. Cmoibenlepro (talk) 14:54, 10 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I'd like to update this map, but Inkscape isn't letting me select the various different oblasts, for whatever reason. Do you know what program was used to make it, so that I can update it? RGloucester — ☎ 14:52, 11 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I didnt make that one, looks like someone used a color fill tool but the tolerance was set too low so all those orange borders were left over. I'd suggest making a new one. —Львівське (говорити) 14:55, 11 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Got it. Which is the base map used by it? It is the same one as the 'Russian protests' one, but I can't find one without any colouring. RGloucester — ☎ 15:13, 11 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• FYI, just created - if you are interested. My very best wishes (talk) 18:36, 11 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Please cover URLs you are citing.[1] Covered URLs are more reader friendly, and they make it possible to update the URLs when the websites restructure.--Toddy1 (talk) 21:23, 12 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I do sometimes, but not always. Can always be cleaned up later.--Львівське (говорити) 21:24, 12 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Please refrain from discussing the use of nazi analogies in the Talk:Donetsk People's Republic. I find this highly offensive. This is your last warning, or I will report you to WP:ANI. Thank you. You may be blocked from editing without further warning the next time you vandalize Wikipedia.

You're offended by me quoting your edit summaries? Now that's a new one. What do you intend to report me for?--Львівське (говорити) 23:27, 12 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you.Cmoibenlepro (talk) 23:50, 12 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

You must be proud. You win. I asked Wikipedia to officially close my account. Congratulations. Cmoibenlepro (talk) 21:19, 13 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Ya'll come back --Львівське (говорити) 21:27, 13 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Just want to archive some of these gems:

I am asking for closing my account. Forever.

Reason: I am personally targeted by the nationalistic hatred of User:Lvivske, as everyday he would bully me, and comment everything I ever posted. I was harassed, threatened, and slandered as I was supposedly against his nationalistic Ukrainian POV. I do not understand why

I tried to ask for help in the page Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#Trolling editor Lvivske, but I was not helped. On the opposite, he continued to troll me on that page.

I want to end this.

I am crying now... I just said that he wanted to see a connection between this article and this incident, and he'd liked to put it. I never wanted to say anything more. Please stop talking to me and I will never again go to your User page or post anything on Wikipedia. PLEASE STOP HARASSING AND BULLYING ME, AS YOU ARE DOING RIGHT NOW Your current comments about me are driving me crazy.

Could you please stop talking to me? I am begging you! Please, I could not sleep because you are all against me, and I feel bullied, threatened and insulted. This is not funny at all. Please stop your personal attacks against me. This is only what I ask. I want to be in security when I post to wikipedia without being harassed. Please stop, I will never go to your talk page again, I promise.

Hey, can I save some of these for further generations? Ali-al-Bakuvi (talk) 17:04, 22 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sorry, but it's neither WP:SYNTH nor OR, it's official point by Russian head of state, from his official site. Why do you remove it? Seryo93 (talk) 06:56, 14 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

the section was on legal aspects of the situation itself, not historical analogies.--Львівське (говорити) 07:32, 14 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

This is legal aspect (even if disputed by the West), because Court noted that "Intl' law contains no prohibiton of self-determination", therefore it's "not necessary to comply with national law" and Russia now uses this ruling as a legal (or politico-legal) argument against Ukrainian claims (see also Declaration of Independence of the Republic of Crimea, which explicitly referrend to this decision). This argument (or at least link to Kosovo precedent) must stay, in my opinion, because it plays too significant role in these events to be ignored. And for "not historical analogies": they sometimes become legal aspect too, see precedent article. Bests, Seryo93 (talk) 11:46, 14 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

My God, if you really are an idiot if you think that your lies and propaganda can fool someone? 500-600 protesters, they are supported by 15% of the people, the junta's "government" ... A month ago you lay down to sleep in Ukraine and woke up without Crimea and good night because free people of Dombas (in all cities) cleaned the fascist scum from their cities!

Do you dare to bet that next week you will not edit protests against the junta in free Dombas? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 188.2.93.233 (talk) 03:01, 15 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The main protesters requirement is defense of democracy from the junta who has destroyed democracy and made ​​a coup. The second requirement is the defense of press freedom since the junta closed 40 TV and radio stations, the third requirement is a referendum on the federalization of the state, fourthrequest ban of fascist law of Russian language (which is the mother tongue of the majority of citizens of Ukraine) but idiots like you create lies and propaganda, have never read the requirements of demonstrators and because of these idiots Donbas 4.5 million people, 2.5 million people of Lugansk and 3.5 million citizens of the Kharkiv area wants a democratic referendum. Of course, do not count Crimea because Crimea is another continent in relation to the junta in Kiev (democratic referendum is a wonderful thing) and Odessa, Dnipropetrovsk and other south-east are 50:50 for federalization. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 188.2.93.233 (talk) 03:22, 15 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Look who is talking! First of all my friend here doesn't even live in Ukraine, and two, he is definitely not an idiot. Just because he might be wrong somewhere doesn't mean you should call him names. By the way, read our policy regarding assuming good faith and personal attacks before ever calling anyone an idiot here.--Mishae (talk) 03:32, 15 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The IP user above has been inserting uncited rubbish and vandalizing articles (ie, changing figures and altering words from cited material) to push a pro-Russian POV that has no basis in reality. Just another day fighting the good fight, I guess. --Львівське (говорити) 04:07, 15 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

So, some man from a New Zenlad, Canada, Australia or other places where poor people emigrate knows "truth" about democratic protests in southeastern Ukraine, called them separatists and junta (who destroyed democracy) called "government", never read their demands (probably in Canada and Australia are not able to do so) but that it does not bother him to write nonsense and insult democratic protests.

Video from Odessa where protesters (who defending democracy and freedom of the press and the fundamental right on mother language ) go to the harbor to protest against USA destroyer is not a good source for him in Canada and he knows the truth, an article from the southeast which says that 25 VDV Brigade crossed on the side of the people against the junta is not a good source for him in Australia and he knows that no one supports the protesters. Clips of tens of thousands of protesters in Donetsk and Kharkov for him are not source, clips of Berkut on the side of the people against the junta is not source, clips of police Colonel and all police officers in Slovanske who moved on people side against junta for him are not the source. Stupidity "few hundred protesters", "supporting 10% of the population", junta is "government" , insulting people who struggle against the junta on a democratic way and looking for a democratic referendum for federalization calling separatists is cheap propaganda of a man who is far away 25000km from free part of Ukraine and has no idea what's going on and turns wiki in cheap propaganda as Local TV station from Lviv. Yutube is an excellent source and if Radio Canada says several hundred protesters, perhaps the media in Donetsk Republic say 1 million Protestants but video can not lie. If a police colonel, all police officers, Berkut ... on video say that stood by the people against the junta then this is an excellent source and if Sydney radio or Kharkiv news may tell a different story the video does not lie.

Wicki is not owned by junta that one man chooses source that he likes, to insult democratic protesters and to spread propaganda and brutal lies.

When one man from Lviv thinks possess all and that can decide which is good source and who is not good, and to write propaganda and ban people who think differently, then this man first wake up without the Crimea and the next day without Donbas, Lugansk, Odesa, Kharkiv ... — Preceding unsigned comment added by 188.2.93.233 (talk) 04:31, 15 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

junta junta junta junta junta junta junta junta junta junta junta junta junta junta junta junta

junta junta junta junta junta junta junta junta junta junta junta junta junta junta junta junta junta junta junta junta junta junta junta junta junta junta junta junta junta junta junta junta junta junta junta junta junta junta junta junta junta junta junta junta junta junta junta junta junta junta junta junta junta junta junta junta junta junta junta junta junta junta junta junta junta junta junta junta junta junta junta junta junta junta junta junta junta junta junta junta junta junta junta junta junta junta junta junta junta junta junta junta junta junta junta junta junta junta junta junta junta junta junta junta junta junta junta junta junta junta junta junta junta junta junta junta junta junta junta junta junta junta junta junta junta junta junta junta junta junta junta junta junta junta junta junta junta junta junta junta junta junta junta junta junta junta junta junta junta junta junta junta junta junta junta junta junta junta junta junta junta junta junta junta junta junta junta junta junta junta junta junta junta junta junta junta junta junta junta junta junta junta junta junta junta junta junta junta junta junta junta junta junta junta junta junta junta junta junta junta junta junta junta junta junta junta junta junta junta junta junta junta junta junta junta junta junta junta junta junta junta junta junta junta junta junta junta junta junta junta junta junta junta junta junta junta junta junta junta junta junta junta junta junta junta junta junta junta junta junta junta junta junta junta junta junta junta junta junta junta junta junta junta junta junta junta junta junta junta junta junta junta junta junta junta junta junta junta junta junta junta junta junta junta junta junta junta junta junta junta junta junta junta junta junta junta junta junta junta junta junta junta junta junta junta junta junta junta junta junta junta junta junta junta junta junta junta junta junta junta junta junta junta junta junta junta junta junta junta junta junta junta junta junta junta junta junta junta junta junta junta junta junta junta junta junta junta junta junta junta junta junta junta junta junta junta junta junta junta junta junta junta junta junta junta junta junta junta junta junta junta junta junta junta junta junta junta junta junta junta junta junta junta junta junta junta junta junta junta junta junta junta junta junta junta junta junta junta junta junta junta junta junta junta junta junta junta junta junta junta junta junta junta junta junta junta junta junta junta junta junta junta junta junta junta junta junta junta junta junta junta junta junta junta junta junta junta junta junta junta junta junta junta junta junta junta junta junta junta junta junta junta junta junta junta junta junta junta junta junta junta junta junta junta junta junta junta junta junta junta junta junta junta junta junta junta junta junta junta junta junta junta junta junta junta junta junta junta junta junta junta junta junta junta junta junta junta junta junta junta junta junta junta junta junta junta junta junta junta junta junta junta junta junta junta junta junta junta junta junta junta junta junta junta junta junta junta junta junta junta junta junta junta junta junta junta junta junta junta junta junta junta junta junta junta junta junta junta junta junta junta junta junta junta junta junta junta junta junta junta junta junta junta junta junta junta junta junta junta junta junta junta junta junta junta junta junta junta junta junta junta junta junta junta junta junta junta junta junta junta junta junta junta junta junta junta junta junta junta junta junta junta junta junta junta junta junta junta junta junta junta junta junta junta junta junta junta junta junta junta junta junta junta junta junta junta junta junta junta junta junta junta junta junta junta junta junta junta junta junta junta junta junta junta junta junta junta junta junta junta junta junta junta junta junta junta junta junta junta junta junta junta junta junta junta junta junta junta --Львівське (говорити) 04:34, 15 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

You have to try harder to make money because you know the truth: "Separatists are mercenaries each received $ 500 to protests"

Correct, they get $500 and those who stand around and hold up signs get $42. It's a sad bunch. —Львівське (говорити) 04:44, 15 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Do they get paid in Donetsk People's Dollars? RGloucester — ☎ 04:56, 15 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Burger King coupons--Львівське (говорити) 04:58, 15 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Smooth. RGloucester — ☎ 05:00, 15 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Well, you could become a millionaire in demonstrations instead you emigrated .Now i see that RT is not a reliable source for you but do not have a problem with the voice of Ukraine! Voice of Ukraine is the property of the junta, funded by the junta and editorial policy make junta. Russia has no state capital in RT, state does not poses RT, Russia does not make the editorial policy of the RT.Russia does not participate directly in the conflict in southeastern Ukraine, but the junta is in conflict with the citizens of Ukraine You in the West should learn that fascism will not pass and if you have not learned as an immigrant you can go back to the free territory of southeast because fascism does not pass here! Sorry I have better things to do than to argue with emigrant who doing the dirty work in the west and produces dirty propaganda for the junta online! Free people of Dombas create Dombas Republic and it's a little significant job than your writing propaganda on wiki. In Kiev people called junta "Facebook government" , you're writing propaganda for junta, so called Prime Minister has imaginary world... Fascism of information age Greetings from the democratic parts of Ukraine who is independent from the junta. Folk wisdom says, "independent as Crime"  :) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 188.2.93.233 (talk) 05:07, 15 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Eight! Eight juntas! ah ah ah ah --Львівське (говорити) 05:11, 15 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

When the gang make a coup, destroying democracy, parliament beating opponents, crush 40 media, fire on their own people, introduce fascist laws on language, sends the fascists in schools to teach children to hate, expressed gold reserves abroad and imported foreign mercenaries (and director of the CIA command).... then the whole world calls this gang junta.

I personally enjoy watching online brave fascists who later whine and cry , " we have lost all the cities in Lugansk area and Dombas . Crimea is another continent, in Odessa 15000 demonstrate against the junta ... "," In Kharkov young fascists do not walk, but go on knees "...

There was once average state with average problems and then junta made coup and average state does not exist, but there are a few new ones.

People of southeast it will not destroy the junta because they will be second states but ordinary people from fascist western Ukraine will destroy JUNTA when understand what they had before the coup and now that Ukraine does not exist and that the junta has increased prices by 50% and salaries and pensions reduced. People in the Southeast wanted a federation of Ukraine, because love Ukraine more then fascists in the west of the country, but junta began to shoot on the people and at the end junta will dream of federalization because southeast will leave Ukraine only because today's behavior of junta. Think about this for half a year. This is a consequence of this behavior as you do "lie and write crap because you think that you can do that without consequences and when reality smacking your foreheadthen it is too late". Generally, ask yourself the question for six months "if federalization was a better solution, but this is what is happening now" Over and out — Preceding unsigned comment added by 188.2.93.233 (talk) 05:50, 15 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

9 juntas and 6 fascists that time. Nice. --Львівське (говорити) 06:11, 15 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Your IP editor is from Servia, not Ukraine. So he/she is outside Ukraine just like the people in Australia and New Zealand he/she complains about.--Toddy1 (talk) 07:06, 15 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

First of all, Lvivske, you shouldn't provoke this discussion by laughing and counting the number of times he says junta and/or fascists it will just escalate a conflict between you two. Instead, try to explain him the rules and guidelines as I did.

Now, to the anonymous user: First, please understand that Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not news agency (although I heard otherwise, like it can even be a political force, but it was just rumours on the net). Second, please take a note that Wikipedia can contain information with which your views might disagree. Third, YouTube is not a source, as well as tweeter and personal blogs, see our guideline on ithere. Four, everyone is welcome to contribute to Wikipedia as long as you abide by the rules. And last but not least, as a personal note, I am an immigrant too. I was born in Russia but then moved to USA, and it doesn't mean that I am not welcomed here. As far as fascists go, people in Western Ukraine are not the same fascists which were there 60 years ago. In fact, they fought against Germans, but also fought against Soviets and Poles, because they wanted their Western part to be independent from the rest of the USSR.--Mishae (talk) 14:28, 15 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not going to waste my time arguing with another IP troll. I'd much rather count the juntas.--Львівське (говорити) 14:31, 15 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Good exercise before going to bed, instead of counting sheep, count juntas. --Mishae (talk) 15:16, 15 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Lvivske, thumbs up on dealing with the weirdo junta-man. Aleksandr Grigoryev (talk) 01:53, 20 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hi dear friend, can you be kind to check if my edit here is correctly written? Many thanks. Yours,--Mishae (talk) 03:32, 15 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the fix. I was a bit confused on what term to use when it came to pro-Russian thing. Like, called them separatists will spark outrage, I thought, and mob wasn't as good as I thought, so thanks for calling them insurgents since that's the most common term, but it still might be disputed because insurgency is name for what's going on in Iraq and on Afghan-Pakistani border. I personally, wont dispute it, I care less, but bear it in mind. Thanks a ton again!--Mishae (talk) 14:34, 15 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Insurgency is the correct term, as is separatists (they want to separate, yes? it's as simple as that). Users on the other end of the spectrum will want to whtiewash it and call them "activists" and "protesters" even if they have guns and bombs, which I think shouldn't be catered to. There's being neutral and then there's just ignoring reality to make everyone happy, and that doesn't tell the story correctly.--Львівське (говорити) 14:36, 15 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hi again, can you kindly check my update to above article so that everything will be in correct English? Many thanks.--Mishae (talk) 17:21, 15 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The above article apparently was vandalized by an anonymous user, can you kindly check?--Mishae (talk) 22:37, 15 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Donetsk People's Republic, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page In absentia (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 08:56, 15 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Lvivske. You have new messages at Joshua Issac's talk page.
Message added 15:01, 15 April 2014 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.[reply]

--Joshua Issac (talk) 15:01, 15 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Does this article have any specific area that needs touch up? I'd be willing to do some refurbishment, if it is necessary. RGloucester — ☎ 18:18, 16 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

for sure compare my diff to my most recent diff and see what others have done. From what I can see some users have inserted some sketchy info with non-RS sources, so that would be the first thing to assess. I'm usually on top of reviewing material but that gap where I took a break is where the 'refurb' stuff came in in small doses --Львівське (говорити) 19:16, 16 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• By the way, should we include anything about the supposed/non-existent Odessa People's Republic in the unrest article? I feel like we should at least have a mention of the fiasco, as the Odessa People's Republic article is likely to be deleted. RGloucester — ☎ 19:36, 16 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I'd only mention it if it were real, otherwise relegate the snafu to the timeline. if it was just an internet hoax then its not worth being the be-all-end-all of odessa activity, ya know? --Львівське (говорити) 19:49, 16 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, the timeline seems appropriate. RGloucester — ☎ 21:18, 16 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Can you check if the above edit to the article adds a due weight content? Man ythanks in advance.--Mishae (talk) 01:06, 17 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for uploading File:CHL logo.png. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. Diannaa (talk) 02:26, 17 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Please do not add unreferenced or poorly referenced information, especially if controversial, to articles or any other page on Wikipedia about living persons, as you did to Victor Yanukovich. Thank you.

The source doesn't say this. And I suspect you know it already. --Moscow Connection (talk) 18:49, 17 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The quote is verbatim from the source. I want to assume good faith but this is twice now you'd said this, so flatly you are lying now and blanking content. --Львівське (говорити) 18:52, 17 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

It's resolved: [2]. It was probably due to some regional filtering or something. We didn't see the same page. Let's talk on the notification board. (I've already explained there why the information I removed and you re-added was incorrect.)
If you remove the warning section on my talk page with some edit summary explaining it was due to regional filtering or a mistake or misunderstanding or something, I will remove this section on your talk page too. --Moscow Connection (talk) 20:45, 17 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Howdy,

This message is being sent to multiple recipients. I've semiprotected the article Arseniy Yatsenyuk due to an ongoing edit war. In the future, please contact the IP on the talk page to prevent further edit wars. Please let me know if you have any questions! Nakon 06:22, 19 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Your argument could be used for Pavel Gubarev the same way or for Aksyonov, or the 2014 Crimean referendum. Aleksandr Grigoryev (talk) 01:39, 20 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

we have an article on Aksyonov's wife? --Львівське (говорити) 02:06, 20 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

If you are going to turn the stub article on the wife into a redirect to the husband, then you need to have some stuff about her in the article on the husband.--Toddy1 (talk) 02:43, 20 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't turn it into a redirect...I PROD'd it.--Львівське (говорити) 02:45, 20 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks.--Toddy1 (talk) 09:13, 20 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

and don't delete user contributes, I suggest you not to participate in WP:WAR https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=List_of_people_killed_during_Euromaidan&action=history — Preceding unsigned comment added by Wrant (talk • contribs) 09:11, 21 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

my explanation was in the edit summary, this content was removed from other pages already --Львівське (говорити) 19:06, 21 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The content is reliable [[WP:RS], the article represents only one POV. I suggest you not to participate in WP:WAR. And again refer to the talking page if you have any evidence that the source is unreliable. --Wrant (talk) 20:07, 21 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Weirdly enough, the article talk page history shows edits by Lvivske, but none by Wrant. Wrant, you also need to be writing on the talk page, explaining why your edit should stick. To incentivise you, if I find that you have not posted anything on the article talk page, I will revert your edit. You both should be discussing edits on the article talk page, not just one of you as now.--Toddy1 (talk) 20:16, 21 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Indeed it does, but I am not familiar that every edit needs an own talk page remark. Further the used source is already in use by the German Wikipedia so I don't see who this source is in anyway unreliable. --Wrant (talk) 21:51, 21 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

what a german news source speculates on is irrelevant clutter. That german-wiki has it doesn't mean this should have it per WP:OTHERSTUFF --Львівське (говорити) 23:58, 21 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

What do you pretend? That ARD is unreliable? We have many werid speculations, but we not always remove them. Seryo93 (talk) 07:45, 22 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

 Question: Dear colleague, how "who fought against Nazi Germany in World War II" implies "liberation"? I don't see this, because fighting (combat) can be carried by any army (either "occupying" or "liberating"). And they fought against Nazi Germany, either way (see Eastern Front (World War II), known as German-Soviet war in ukwiki and Great Patriotic War in Russia). Seryo93 (talk) 07:41, 22 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

it's highly controversial since it says its a statue for fighting nazis, but the soviet union annexed that territory too. Rather than go back and forth on which POV is correct, just leave all POV out and state its a military statue. --Львівське (говорити) 16:08, 23 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

also by saying it's a statue for fighting Nazi Germany, it implies it was removed because people were pro-Nazi, when in fact it was removed because it was a symbol of occupation. --Львівське (говорити) 16:10, 23 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

People's Republic of Odessa - This might interest you:

• 07:59, 22 April 2014‎ Toddy1 . . . . (Nominate for speedy deletion - recreation of deleted article see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Odessa People's Republic)
• 07:45, 22 April 2014‎ Toddy1. . . . (Undid revision 605229779 by ArmijaDonetsk (talk) revert redirect to dead link)
• 00:56, 22 April 2014‎ ArmijaDonetsk . . (37 bytes) (-5,445)‎ . . (←Redirected page to Odessa People's Republic)
• 19:28, 21 April 2014‎ Lihaas . . . . (→‎top: spelt out, i hope)
• 19:26, 21 April 2014‎ Lihaas . . . . (→‎See also: ol)
• 19:26, 21 April 2014‎ Lihaas . . . . (→‎History)
• 19:25, 21 April 2014‎ Lihaas . . . . (←Created page with ' {{Infobox country |conventional_long_name=People's Republic of Odessa |native_name= Одеса наро́дная респу́...')

--Toddy1 (talk) 08:12, 22 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Donetsk People's Republic, you added links pointing to the disambiguation pages Romani and Junta (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 08:53, 22 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Your upload of File:Champions hockey league group stage.png or contribution to its description is noted, and thanks (even if belatedly) for your contribution. In order to help make better use of the media, an attempt has been made by an automated process to identify and add certain information to the media's description page.

This notification is placed on your talk page because a bot has identified you either as the uploader of the file, or as a contributor to its metadata. It would be appreciated if you could carefully review the information the bot added. To opt out of these notifications, please follow the instructions here. Thanks! Message delivered by Theo's Little Bot (opt-out) 14:21, 22 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I'm starting a draft of a potential future article that will deal with content split off from Donetsk People's Republic. I personally think it makes sense to split information about the conflict off from the 'state entity'. I thought I should bring a draft to the table before proposing anything concrete. I don't know if you support this idea, but if you do, I would appreciate help in deciding what content to split off. Thanks, RGloucester — ☎ 14:03, 23 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

good idea, it's really needed at this point. --Львівське (говорити) 15:02, 23 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Can you help me with adding in information related to the crisis? I'm working on it now, but I'm not sure how to parse out which bits of information to move. I'll prepare a second draft for the post-split Donetsk People's Republic article after I've finished with this one. Also, I was wondering which infobox to use: civil conflict, or military conflict? RGloucester — ☎ 15:35, 23 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

good question, it kinda covers both...i'd say military conflict since the one side is mostly paramilitary groups, that is, if we want to focus on the violence and not the protesters (but we have the pro-russia article to deal with the protest movement). I'll try to help but am a bit busy at the moment.--Львівське (говорити) 16:06, 23 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

This message is being sent to let you know of a discussion at the Wikipedia:Dispute resolution noticeboard regarding a content dispute discussion you may have participated in. Content disputes can hold up article development and make editing difficult for editors. You are not required to participate, but you are both invited and encouraged to help find a resolution. The thread is "Wikipedia:Dispute resolution noticeboard#Right Sector". Please join us to help form a consensus. Thank you! —Theodore! (talk) (contribs) 12:42, 24 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I don't have the time to do it myself but an article on Putin's "Little Green Men" (or maybe Putin's Tourists) is pretty much overdue. Given the kinds of articles on this broad topic that have been found to pass notability criteria that would qualify with flying colors.Volunteer Marek (talk) 03:33, 25 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Volunteer Marek, it is not worth to compose those articles. Putin already acknowledged that the "green men" in Crimea were his Armed Forces. Heck, there is even a medal of taking over Crimea (Feb 20 - Mar 18). Note the dates of operations which started before Yanukovych ran away from Ukraine. Russia is using terrorist tactics in Ukraine. Aleksandr Grigoryev (talk) 15:33, 26 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

On April 26, 2014 Strelkov gave an exclusive interview to the Komsomolskaya Pravda. Search warrant as itself, of course, is not notable. He however is the leader of militia in Sloviansk. SBU made colossal amount of investigation on that matter. There are some 25 GRU agents that are already in the SBU's custody (In Ukraine, the security services have arrested more than 25 saboteurs GRU RF. The Ukrainian Week. April 24, 2014) and confirmed the fact that Strelkov is heading all the covert operations in the East Ukraine. Too bad Rueters chooses not follow on those facts and question the sources of SBU information. Aleksandr Grigoryev (talk) 15:22, 26 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Have you seen this English think-tank briefing paper?--Toddy1 (talk) 20:55, 29 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I have not but I'll try to give it a read, thanks! --Львівське (говорити) 21:02, 29 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Did you see the BBC article about the "green men"? There was an English language statement: "In an interview with the Russian tabloid Komsomolskaya Pravda last weekend, Commander "Strelkov" claimed that "more than half, or maybe two-thirds" of his force were Ukrainians."--Toddy1 (talk) 06:44, 2 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

yeah, included it all in the Sloviansk article under the identity of militants section --Львівське (говорити) 06:47, 2 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

ThaddeusB (talk) 15:30, 3 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I got to go make dinner, but when I get a moment I'll file a new SPI. This dude, this dude and this dude look like the same person, and I noticed earlier a whole bunch of other accounts whose topics of interest are limited to the crisis in Ukraine and the war in Syria exclusively.Volunteer Marek (talk) 20:59, 3 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

that's how it usually starts. Go to make dinner and all hell breaks loose --Львівське (говорити) 21:22, 3 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited 2 May 2014 Odessa clashes, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Oleksandr Klymenko (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 08:51, 4 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

	The Tireless Contributor Barnstar
	Your tireless work on Ukraine crisis related articles is highly appreciated, even with the endless contention that is involved. Therefore, I award you this barnstar. RGloucester — ☎ 18:18, 4 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Please, you can not remove the neutrality message until the dispute is resolved. Hhmb (talk) 01:08, 5 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

you can not add a template unless a dispute is ongoing —Львівське (говорити) 01:18, 5 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The template is not a substitute for discussion. Unless you specify what the issue is on the talk page, it will be removed. I removed it earlier because the dispute of the editor who placed it was solved on the talk page. RGloucester — ☎ 01:47, 5 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

This article from ITAR-TASS says that there has been a western 'information blockade' on events going on in eastern Ukraine for the past couple of days. Obviously, we take what they say with a grain of salt. However, something that this article says is true. I've been keeping an eye on the OSCE website for a whole now, adding in their updates to the articles. Despite the fact that they issued a routine press release of updates on the situation each day since their mission has started, they stopped doing this after 30 April. There have been no daily updates since then, coinciding with the government counter-offensive. As such, we lack the kind of independent information they usually provide. I don't know what to make of it, to be honest. Perhaps there is some kind of an information blockade, or perhaps it is conspiracy junk. RGloucester — ☎ 05:48, 5 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Looks like typical whining. "No one knows that blood is being shed in Ukraine"? "troops are shooting unarmed people"? You may be on to something that there is a grain of truth to it (an OSCE blackout during the operation, seeing as the operation was also meant to release the OSCE military observers in Sloviansk) - but it seems to me that they took that pause in reporting and turned it into an international conspiracy / make Russian media look more credible vs. "the West" —Львівське (говорити) 05:56, 5 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Of course, the usual bombastic propagandising is there. That might be a good explanation for the lack of OSCE reporting, though. It really surprised me when they never provided updates about the military operations in Donetsk, or the Odessa fire. They were very thorough before. RGloucester — ☎ 06:01, 5 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Seems they only made a small note of remorse on Odessa. I can totally see an agency like ITAR turning "pleased to have been able to assist the Ukrainian authorities in the efforts that led to their release." into "OSCE admits it is abetting fascist junta authorities in their attack on civilians in Sloviansk" --Львівське (говорити) 06:19, 5 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I think we need to request full protection for the Odessa article. This is getting absurd, with the skewing of sources, but I'm not going to revert more and risk being blocked for it. Do you think you could do the requesting at WP:RPP? RGloucester — ☎ 01:46, 6 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

why me? --Львівське (говорити) 01:48, 6 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I've done most of the reverting, and I'd prefer not to be accused of asking for protection because of my involvement in a content dispute. However, I'll do it if you think it is appropriate. RGloucester — ☎ 01:56, 6 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Here. Volunteer Marek (talk) 05:08, 6 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

am aware. thanks. ugh. —Львівське (говорити) 05:09, 6 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• What a headache. At least the article is protected now… I would like to know where all these socks are coming from, though. RGloucester — ☎ 05:38, 6 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

VK awareness groups? —Львівське (говорити) 05:50, 6 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I think that's a bit too strong. There are plenty of reasonable and friendly Russians in the world. It seems, at the moment, we are merely attracting those who wish to right great wrongs. RGloucester — ☎ 05:57, 6 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

If you are surprised by this, maybe you should read this book. The things described in the book were organised using 1940s technology. It is much easier to organise these things with 21st Century technology. The current demonstrations, the storming of buildings, etc. in Ukraine are organised. The method of organising that was most likely used is one called "directive control" or "auftragstaktik" (in connection with NATO/western military forces), or "democratic centralism" (in connection with the communist party). Basically, the central authority says what effect must be achieved, and local authorities have discretion about how they achieve it. It is a very effective method; it is not unique to the military and the communist party - for example central government in England has been using this method of controlling local government for more than 30 years. It should come as no surprise that Moscow-central also engages in information-operations in the virtual world; their predecessors always did such operations in the world of print media, radio, films, TV....--Toddy1 (talk) 07:09, 6 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

How did we ever not get along? --Львівське (говорити) 07:13, 6 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. I hope you are doing well. Sorry to bother, but I have a quick question in regards to this change. Could you please point to the location in the text where "Denis Pushilin initially confirmed that the flyers were distributed by his organization"? I somehow missed this part. Thank you. With regards, Oleg. Y. (talk). 20:03, 6 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

No problem. It was directly from the original ynet article [3] I've fixed the reference in the article --Львівське (говорити) 20:26, 6 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. Now it makes sense. With regards, Oleg. Y. (talk). 20:36, 6 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I may be misreading it, but aren't your edits to List of massacres in Ukraine covered by your 1RR/48hrs restriction? Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 16:03, 7 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

i've lost track. I'd self rev but have already been reverted. --Львівське (говорити) 16:05, 7 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Given that your recent appeal was declined so it's fresh in people's minds (which is the only reason I thought of it) you need to be very careful about reverting. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 16:09, 7 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I prefer to see myself as a reckless cop on probation. --Львівське (говорити) 16:21, 7 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, Seeing as you initially created a map for the Donetsk Republic, I was just wondering if you have made a similar map for the so-called Luhansk Peoples Republic. Although there is not a separate article for this subject at this stage I don't think that it would necessarily be a bad idea to have a some a visual representation given that the Republic was 'established' 10 days ago. I have created a map I believe to be accurate however have been waiting for a separate article to be created before I thought it was appropriate to upload. Any comments? Lunch for Two (talk) 11:23, 9 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Honestly I'm not even up on what cities have been occupied in Luhansk. I guess you can place your map in the Luhansk section of the pro-Russian unrest article until its necessary to split it off (which could be any day now, I'm not opposed to an article any more) —Львівське (говорити) 14:03, 9 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The OSCE consistently has said that only Luhansk city has had any occupations. RGloucester — ☎ 14:36, 9 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

thanks, wasnt sure. This graphic says otherwise though --Львівське (говорити) 14:42, 9 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

That graphic seems questionable, if you ask me. OSCE has been all over the place in Donetsk, but in Luhansk they've only said Luhansk city has any problems. If there was significant unrest there, I believe they'd say so. RGloucester — ☎ 14:47, 9 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Re: Gloucester; apart from Luhansk, there are reports that takeover of government buildings has occured in Antratsyt, Stakhanov, Krasnyi Luch, Pervomaisk, Alchevsk, Sverdlovsk, Severodonetsk, Stanica Luhanska and Slovianoserbsk amongst others. Attempted buidling occupations, along with the erection of checkpoints and referendum preparations, have been occuring Rovenky, Rubizhne, Lisichansk, Starobilsk, Krasnodon, Mologvardeisk, etc. There may be more. Imho the sources are sufficient to evidence that the 'Republic' has spread beyond the regional capital. Lunch for Two (talk) 03:38, 10 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I'd double check the Severodonetsk claim since other sources I found said 2 men showed up but got nothing, otherwise I agree that it's beyond Luhansk, especially with Antrasyt. --Львівське (говорити) 03:40, 10 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Allegedly up to a dozen peoples seized the prosecutors office and the local television station. You're right though it probably belongs in the second list of cities. Lunch for Two (talk) 08:27, 10 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• I'm slightly concerned about all of this, as none of it has been reported by the western media at all, nor by the OSCE. The discussion we had at the reliable sources noticeboard made clear that Russian and Ukrainian sources should not be used without verification in western reliable sources… RGloucester — ☎ 03:48, 10 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Antratsyt - (Guardian) (Huffpost Tymchuk report) khpg stopfake has info on what ukrainian press reported, RT video - I guess we can fact check them later but this one checks out --Львівське (говорити) 04:09, 10 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, that one's good, as far as I can tell. I'd be pretty perturbed, personally, If I saw those trucks full of Cossacks rolling in. Nevertheless… RGloucester — ☎ 04:13, 10 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Stakhanov - telegraph said they read reports and were going to confirm it, but never followed up on it (i guess it wasnt real?) [4] --Львівське (говорити) 04:24, 10 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

People have allegedly stormed local administration buildings, set up roadblocks, checkpoints [5] and the local business center. [6] Lunch for Two (talk) 07:39, 10 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Well, regardless of anything else, if any of this stuff is verifiable, we need a place to put it. Is it time to revive the article? However, it isn't clear that those Cossacks in Antratsyt are connected to the People's Republic, as they didn't fly that flag. It might be odd to put that in a 'People's Republic' article. RGloucester — ☎ 04:27, 10 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

good point. how about a catch-all luhansk article and make the 'republic' article when we deem it necessary to split (or if they end up working together under Bolotov, renaming it) —Львівське (говорити) 04:43, 10 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

How about if I 'revive' the People's Republic article and move it to a '2014 Luhansk insurgency', or something like that? We can split off the Republic later, if it is necessary. RGloucester — ☎ 04:52, 10 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I've done. That now we have a place for Luhansk stuff: 2014 insurgency in Luhansk. RGloucester — ☎ 05:00, 10 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I also copied this discussion to the talk page there, so people know what went on. RGloucester — ☎ 05:04, 10 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I think the article is a good start as it can cover the initial failed republic and now this 'second' Republic. The above links should be reasonably verifiable, however I wouldn't be suprised if there are some discrepancies given that it is a current event. Lunch for Two (talk) 07:39, 10 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• I'll move any further comments here so as to not clog up your talk page. Lunch for Two (talk) 08:52, 10 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

	The Tireless Contributor Barnstar
	seen you and RGloucester on the Ukraine unrest page a lot, keep it up Retartist (talk) 11:43, 9 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Interfax did report the incident. Please see [7], where the news is titled "Lifenews TV channel reports mortar attack on its crew near Slovyansk (Part 2)" both at time 15:50 and 15:56.霎起林野间 (talk) 15:05, 9 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

all it says is "Lifenews TV channel reports mortar attack on its crew near Slovyansk" so it's possible that Lifenews made some hoax, Interfax reported that lifenews reported it, and then VOR made it sound like interfax verified it. That's what it looks like to me, maybe I'm wrong, but I'm extremely suspicious of when I see lifenews mentioned in any capacity given their track record. --Львівське (говорити) 16:07, 9 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

This is from the "official website" of the Donetsk People's Republic. It is quite amusing.

P.S. British prime-minister David Cameron is being put on probation in condition that he shall re-consider his position towards the Ukrainian junta, taking into the account the special relationship between the UK and Donetsk (which was founded by a British businessman, John Hughes, granted a concession by the Russian government in 1870)

— Denis Pushilin

It seems that sanctions have been imposed! RGloucester — ☎ 19:09, 10 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

wow...haha--Львівське (говорити) 19:14, 10 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that you've added some links pointing to disambiguation pages. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

Flag of the Donetsk People's Republic (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)

added a link pointing to Unrecognized state

Siege of Sloviansk (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)

added a link pointing to Znamensky

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 08:52, 11 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

This is a map of the conflict in Ukraine. Once again, it portrays only Luhansk city has having problems. I don't know what's up with this. RGloucester — ☎ 16:10, 11 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

it's like they used wikipedia as a reference and saw we didnt do the work for them like with donetsk, so just got lazy and penciled in luhansk alone --Львівське (говорити) 16:28, 11 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hence the benefits of using both Russian/Ukrainian ("local") and Western sources, given that the Western sources can also have reliability issues. Lunch for Two (talk) 17:32, 15 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

i agree --Львівське (говорити) 17:33, 15 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

That would be the case, except for the mass amount of propaganda being foisted on both sides. It is quite clear that most reliable western sources have taken a middle ground, here. No one said that we couldn't use Russian or Ukrainian sources, but that they must be confirmed in western reports. RGloucester — ☎ 17:39, 15 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

that's the same thing as not allowing them, since we prefer english sources over ukrainian/russian if all things are equal. —Львівське (говорити) 17:41, 15 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

No, because the Ukrainian or Russian reports usually go into more detail. If the basic line of events is confirmed in a western source, one can take details and attribute them to the Ukrainian or Russian sources. RGloucester — ☎ 19:27, 15 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that there is an information war, however if the two "opposing" sides are both running the same "propaganda" then it is highly likely that what is being reported is somewhat more reliable than those reports where the information is significantly divergent, even without the verification from Western sources. That being said, the Western press has failed to report on many issues necessary for building articles and we are restricted to the 'local' media. What's newsworthy in the West is understandably different to what audiences in Ukraine/Russia are interested in reading about. Lunch for Two (talk) 15:14, 16 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Re: Donetsk Map. I've noticed that you have made changes to the map for the DPR. Whilst I am not against changes that reflect the situation on the ground, at the end of all this saga we will still probably need a map showing maximum territorial extent of the entity. This may be best achieved by leaving a version of the map that reflects this? Thoughts? Lunch for Two (talk) 07:56, 20 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I was not pushing any POV, I was just updating, with references. The anything only thing that may eventually be considered POV there is the inclusion of information provided by RT, but that's RT POV, not mine. If you look at the edit as a whole, I don't think is POV at all.Mondolkiri1 (talk) 16:46, 12 May 2014 (UTC)Mondolkiri1 (talk) 03:27, 13 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

im lost, what in particular are we talking about right now? --Львівське (говорити) 16:58, 12 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I thought you would not be adverse to answering a question about this, seeing as you do not try to hide your support for this group. This is NOT an attack, I was just very surprised to learn this. Do you agree with all the stances of the party? Specifically the controversial ones, like the alleged anti antisemitism and homophobia, or just the Ukrainian nationalism in general?Fungal vexation (talk) 14:38, 14 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Nationalism in general. I don't know how it would be possible to agree with an 'alleged' (unofficial) stance of a party. --Львівське (говорити) 15:00, 14 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I worded my question incorrectly. I'll just copy and paste right from the svoboda article. What's your opinion on this?Fungal vexation (talk) 14:43, 15 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Svoboda supports conservative values, and opposes abortion and gay rights.[135][136] In 2012, Human Rights Watch condemned Svoboda for disrupting a gay rights rally, called "a Sabbath of 50 perverts" in an official statement by Svoboda.[137] Svoboda opposed legislation in 2013 that would have barred employers from discriminating against workers on the basis of their sexual orientation.[138] Journalist David Stern describes the party as a "driving force" behind anti-gay politics in Ukraine, but states that many of its members may not share all its controversial positions.[139] In April 2013, three Svoboda MPs sponsored a bill banning abortions except in cases involving severe pathology, a medical risk to a woman's life, and rape when proven in court.[140][141] Future Vice Prime Minister Oleksandr Sych, who has long opposed abortion, was one of the authors of the bill and responded to a question about what a pregnant woman should do if she failed to prove the rape in court by encouraging women to "lead the kind of lifestyle to avoid the risk of rape, including refraining from drinking alcohol and being in controversial company."[140][141][142][143]

I feel like this should be fleshed out but I don't have time right now to dig into every ref, the first ref is contradictory as it starts with "Svoboda campaigns firmly for EU membership and Western values". Now have they campaigned against 'gay rights' and abortions, or did party members do this? I guess we could assume that those 3 who submitted the anti-abortion bill had party blessing, but I don't like to assume (does the Republican party okay every wackadoodle bill an ultraconservative draws up? It's not the Bachman Party) Is this stuff part of the party platform? Like Stern then says "many of its members may not share all its controversial positions". Sych is an ******* and I don't support or condone those idiotic comments. --Львівське (говорити) 14:58, 15 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Why not just support Right Sector then? It seems to share most of the same nationalistic beliefs, with half the xenophobia and racism.Fungal vexation (talk) 17:18, 15 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

They kicked me out for not being 'militant' enough. In all seriousness, RS is significantly more xenophobic and by nature of being a coalition of far-right groups, wrought with knucklehead neo-nazi and skinhead types. Svoboda on the other hand is at least gradually shifting towards center-right and moderation. --Львівське (говорити) 17:29, 15 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I'll go back to coping and pasting "The Associated Press reported in March 2014 that international news organizations had found no evidence of hate crimes by the group" taken from the right sector article.

In the same article I found a picture of protesters wearing nazi like svovoda arm bands, (not sure if I can post links like this) https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/b/b9/Maidan_Kiev_2014-04-13_11-48.JPG/800px-Maidan_Kiev_2014-04-13_11-48.JPG

Here's another copy "In February 2014, Yarosh and the Israeli ambassador to Ukraine agreed to establish a "hotline" to prevent provocations and coordinate actions when issues arise.[29][30] The group assists in the protection of Jewish sites in Odessa"

Lastly this In an interview, Yarosh stated that Right Sector and Svoboda "have a lot of common positions when it comes to ideological questions," but that Right Sector “absolutely do[es]n’t accept certain racist things they [Svoboda members] share.”[

I was getting the exact opposite vibe then the one you just expressed above.Fungal vexation (talk) 22:04, 15 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Also, Canada seems to be pretty left leaning. Before I took a close look at your userpage I judged you to be a liberal or a socialist or something. I guess I was way off.Fungal vexation (talk) 22:13, 15 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The picture you posted are Social-National Assembly or the paramilitary wing Patriot, a major part of Right Sector (so tight that Right Sector East uses the same symbol now to solidify the SNA merger); those are not Svoboda arm bands. RS has done a good job jumping on some of the negative PR and removing the Jewish hot-button. What Yarosh said seems to be total rubbish (saying they are less racist than Svoboda members), RS had "White Hammer" in it for a time before removing them, and I'm sure you could look up all the neo-nazi links RS has through its members. I don't know of anything racist Svoboda has ever done outside of some unfortunate soundbites.

For race, ets look at Tryzub, the main half of Right Sector and Yarosh's own group who say "With your family, make up the ark of thy purity of Race and Nation." As for gay rights and abortion, I'm sure they're even more against the two (got into an argument with one the other day since they were obsessing on the Eurovision thing). Also, while Svoboda wants to join the EU, Right Sector is against it and all the 'European depravity' just as Russian nationalists / orthodox also freak out about.

Canada is left leaning in part but we also have had a conservative government for some time now --Львівське (говорити) 01:19, 16 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I like all of the groups for their nationalism, they all have negatives as well which I detest. It would seem every political party in Ukraine has good and bad, though.--Львівське (говорити) 01:19, 16 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

That seems fair. Thank you for explaining.Fungal vexation (talk) 12:50, 16 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Mind if I state a couple of opinions?Fungal vexation (talk) 02:23, 17 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

shoot --Львівське (говорити) 02:26, 17 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry for the delay. I saw that you support the "independence" movements Abkhazia and South Ossetia. And somehow you're also against the independence movement of Kosovo. And you're completely against the Russian backed movements in eastern Ukraine. You don't find this all hypocritical?Fungal vexation (talk) 16:19, 19 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Ukraine is an entirely different nut: no ethnic cleansing, no homogenous enclave, no civil war, no real local support for separation (plus its significantly fueled by a foreign state and not a natural civil conflict). I guess you could say Serbia and Georgia are the same boat. I added those userboxes probably years apart so my opinion may have shifted and didn't notice. I guess I supported the idea of Kosovo remaining a UN administered part of Serbia, but I guess thats a dated perception. Personally I'm a bit torn on Kosovo today. I feel that Abkhazia/Ossetia declared independence properly and democratically following the fall of the USSR, as all former Soviet regions had the right to, and should have been granted their independence then - but Georgia forcefully kept them. The ongoing inter-ethnic violence made unification impossible and realistically there is no viable solution where they remain part of Georgia de facto or de jure, though it's hard to recognize them de jure in the present and I understand the international response seeing as they are Russian puppet regions wrought with crime like Transnistria...--Львівське (говорити) 17:26, 19 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Should we create an article like this? I'm not really in the position to be writing a new article right now, but I think that there is plenty of basis for one, and that it might be a good idea to get a draft going. RGloucester — ☎ 02:59, 18 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

same boat: not in a position but there is basis for one. maybe put it on the burner? --Львівське (говорити) 06:05, 18 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

No I do not think we should create such an article.

There are two key-points that articles on the various events/organisations should cover:

• The pro-Russian separatists treat non-Russian ethnic or language groups badly. (Sometimes they try to deny particular events - for example, they had a Russian journalist who lives in Moscow write an article for the Guardian claiming that the Donetsk anti-semitic leaflet was a Kiev-government hoax.)
• They use severe beatings of selected individuals to get the message across what happens to you if you stand up to them. This has happened repeatedly.

We should not want these archived off to an article just about that subject.--Toddy1 (talk) 09:26, 18 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

well right now there was a push to condense such info, like the jewish leaflet scandal. Better to have it archived in depth than edited down to nothing, no? The amount of violations and reports (OSCE, UN, HRW) is pretty long and would probably be too big to go into depth on the respective articles. --Львівське (говорити) 17:57, 18 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Ukraine: Anti-Kiev Forces Running Amok

These forces, who call themselves the “Army of the Southeast,” seized control of the city of Luhansk in April 2014 and since then have abducted dozens of people, beating and torturing some of them.

“Anti-Kiev insurgents are using beatings and kidnappings to send the message that anyone who doesn’t support them had better shut up or leave,” said Hugh Williamson, Europe and Central Asia director at Human Rights Watch. “These forces are out of control, abusing people at will.”

--Львівське (говорити) 21:09, 23 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. --Toddy1 (talk) 20:40, 19 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Mariupol standoff, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Renegade (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 08:52, 20 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Have you seen this - Аргумент, Россия официально отказалась от гарантий территориальной целостности Украины, 20 May 2014.--Toddy1 (talk) 07:26, 21 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for uploading File:NewRussiaPartyLogo.jpg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. Stefan2 (talk) 22:38, 22 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for uploading or contributing to File:NewRussiaPartyLogo.jpg. I notice the file page specifies that the file is being used under non-free content criteria, but there is not a suitable explanation or rationale as to why each specific use in Wikipedia is acceptable. Please go to the file description page, and edit it to include a non-free rationale.

If you have uploaded other non-free media, consider checking that you have specified the non-free rationale on those pages too. You can find a list of 'file' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "File" from the dropdown box. Note that any non-free media lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If the file is already gone, you can still make a request for undeletion and ask for a chance to fix the problem. If you have any questions, please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.  Ronhjones  ^(Talk) 22:44, 22 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for uploading or contributing to File:NewRussiaPartyLogo.png. I notice the file page specifies that the file is being used under non-free content criteria, but there is not a suitable explanation or rationale as to why each specific use in Wikipedia is acceptable. Please go to the file description page, and edit it to include a non-free rationale.

If you have uploaded other non-free media, consider checking that you have specified the non-free rationale on those pages too. You can find a list of 'file' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "File" from the dropdown box. Note that any non-free media lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If the file is already gone, you can still make a request for undeletion and ask for a chance to fix the problem. If you have any questions, please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.  Ronhjones  ^(Talk) 22:44, 22 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The source in question is the Praviy Sektor leader Dmytro Yarosh here [8], quoting the report for you Fighters from the nationalist group Praviy Sektor subsequently joined the fight and succeeded in partially breaking the encirclement to allow the core of the Donbas Battalion to escape, said Praviy Sektor leader Dmytro Yarosh on Facebook. Its coming from Pravi Sektor themselves. So please don't remove sourced information. If you want to note the Donbas unit playing coy and refusing to comment than please do so (since that's also in the source). Also, you reverted stuff that I edited that were of a totally different nature. Please in the future don't do blank full reverts. Thank you. EkoGraf (talk) 00:57, 24 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I reinserted it, still, it is an unverified claim which may not meet inclusion. I'm going to look into whether Right Sector East has its own unit now but it should just be Donbas and Azov. --Львівське (говорити) 01:03, 24 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I am asking you, please, stick to what the sources say and do not remove sourced information. Sources clearly label Right Sector as nationalist, the person killed as a separatist supporter and do not describe the building in any way occupied. EkoGraf (talk) 02:41, 24 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

the source clearly says he was a separatist. you should practice what you preach, or maybe lay off editing events you aren't up to speed on. --Львівське (говорити) 03:16, 24 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

[9] I reverted because it failed verification. Nowhere in the KP article does it say the guy who died was a "supporter" but that he was rather a Russian-backed separatist. Not sure why you are debating this or making this up. Regarding the other terms, not sure why you are un-wiki linking Right Sector and putting "nationalist" as a prefix, as their politics has nothing to do with the skirmish. Further, why are you replacing 'reinforcements' with 'fighters' - was it a fist fight? --Львівське (говорити) 04:08, 24 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Let's start with item number 1 - The article states in the third paragraph Both were active SUPPORTERS of the Kremlin-backed, breakaway Donetsk People. So your statement that it doesn't say anywhere he was a supporter is incorrect. As a compromise I used the combination of the two, both pro-Russian separatist and supporter (both per the source). At this point I would also like to note that accusing me of making stuff up when its clearly in the source is a violation of Wikipedia: Civility. Item number 2 - Source clearly says they are nationalists and there is no reason not to point it out. Item number 3 - source describes them as fighters not reinforcements, and comments like was it a fist fight is again violation of Wikipedia: Civility. Item number 4 - you totally ignored my question about your unsourced insertion of the term occupied to describe the building, so I would once again point out that the building is not described anywhere in the source as occupied, so please withold on any unsourced edits. I have no idea why you are taking such a hostile attitude with me instead of assuming a bit of good faith as Wikipedia requires from us and read the sources a bit more carefully. Thank you! Regards! EkoGraf (talk) 05:56, 24 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, it says they "were active supporters" in the sense of their ideology, but the wording you had implies they were simply pro-Russian bystanders and not separatists themselves - I didn't know why you wanted to keep that word in since it's redundant. I didn't mean to accuse you of making things up, but was confused why you might because the article didn't define them as you suggested

Pointing out Right Sector as nationalist is irrelevant, we don't need to write a history on their politics, this paragraph is about combat. Did they do anything nationalistic? Militant would be a better word considering it's a paramilitary coalition as well as a nationalist political party.

I have to ask though, why are you so intent on using the exact same phrasing as the sources? You can't say in one breath that they arrived to help and in another remove the word "reinforce" because it wasn't in the original source. We can cherry pick all day what mundane words are or aren't matching in sources. This is an article not a verbatim quote. We're allowed to paraphrase.

Asking if you thought it was a fist fight was not against civility so I'll ask again, do you think it was a fight? Was it a scene in Fight Club? Was it a hockey fight?

'Occupied' is another example of being weird about words. Are you disputing that the building was occupied? Within 10 seconds I found an article calling it occupied. Need I remind you that we on wiki have articles dedicated to the occupation of government buildings by separatists. This was a government building that had separatists in it with their flag on the wall - it was occupied. How else would you describe it?

--Львівське (говорити) 06:32, 24 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

English definition of the word fighter - Boxer, one who boxes; Martial artist; Soldier; Warrior. In any case I'm not up for a fight over mundaine things. EkoGraf (talk) 12:12, 24 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

P.S. Thank you for the source confirming both of the dead were separatists, and not just one. EkoGraf (talk) 13:40, 24 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Lvivske. This message is being sent to inform you that there currently is a discussion at Wikipedia:Neutral point of view/Noticeboard regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. The thread is Mariupol standoff.The discussion is about the topic Mariupol standoff. Thank you. Kalidasa 777 (talk) 11:13, 24 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I think I expanded the article as much as it could be expanded. But I wanted to ask you should we maybe need an article on the other checkpoint battle from yesterday between the separatists and the Donbas paramilitaries? EkoGraf (talk) 19:03, 24 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

personally I dont think they warrant articles, especially yesterday's skirmish. Far too small with limited media coverage, can't have an article on every gunfight that goes down IMO. --Львівське (говорити) 19:06, 24 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Ok on yesterday's battle, but Volnovakha should stay with its own article because the event was significant enough, large enough and notable enough in the mainstream media. EkoGraf (talk) 19:09, 24 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Volnovakha checkpoint attack is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Volnovakha checkpoint attack until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article. Lunch for Two (talk) 14:45, 25 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hello! About your position in relation to the party's ideology New Russia: Why did you decide that this is a far-right party? Do you know what a Russian nationalism? Мики32 (talk) 05:13, 27 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

it doesnt say far-right on the page at the moment and i dont know what you mean by "do you know what a Russian nationalism" --Львівське (говорити) 05:24, 27 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Are you sure that this is a nationalist party? Russian nationalism is not much different from nationalism in other countries. In cluding and Ukrainian. For example, all of them have anti-communism. Russian rights is no exception. In this case, We can see how the party leader and his associates put St. George ribbon in solidarity with the Russian Communist victory in the German-Soviet war. Also ribbon displayed on the symbolism of the party. Russian party with nationalist ideology would not have allowed such. Russian rights neglected St. George's ribbon. Please roll back your edits in the article to my version. Мики32 (talk) 07:12, 27 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that you've added some links pointing to disambiguation pages. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

2014 pro-Russian unrest in Ukraine (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)

added a link pointing to Confederacy

Donetsk People's Republic (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)

added a link pointing to Znamensky

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 08:52, 27 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Dated junk? It was fact that per the sources during the evening the situation was unclear with the separatists making claims of a succesufull counter-attack which was disproven by the BBC. The situation only became clear in the morning. You also removed the part on the wounded in the trucks being hit, along with its sources. And the part about half of 100 being civilians failing verification is in-correct since the very first part paragraph in the source says More than 50 self-defense fighters and as many civilians have been killed... Also, the mayor claimed 40 died, of those 38 being rebels and 2 civilians, not 50. It was the rebel prime minister who claimed 50 rebels died. EkoGraf (talk) 19:12, 27 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

the situation was unclear yesterday but now we know, why do we have to insert dated speculation? Clearly the separatist claims of a successful counter attack were fake, and we can't take either side's on-the-ground statements with much credibility unless verified. We now have major news sources and leaders confirming everything, so why include 'junk'?

Where did I remove part of the trucks being hit, I don't see? If I did it was my accident I'll double check...

I see now the "and as many civilians"...but do we include rebel speculation? We've had discussions on not using russian or ukrainian sources unless verified and this seems to fall into more "infowar" speculation since they're not accounting for even their own men, and admitted they couldn't count their men because of sniper fire, so how can they count civilians? We already know only 2 civvys died, not 50. For the same reason I removed the Ukrainian statement of 150 rebels dead, unconfirmed infowar speculation.

The mayor said 48 according to Reuters. --Львівське (говорити) 19:18, 27 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

[10]

Donetsk mayor Alexander Lukyanchenko said 48 people had been killed and 43 injured in the past day.

--Львівське (говорити) 19:19, 27 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Yes Reuters said that, but I checked and double checked and the mayor's exact quote from his press service was two civilians and 38 fighters died, while I found it was in fact the Prime Minister who said 50 or more, so it seems Reuters messed up on this one in attributing the claims. As for the 50 civilians claimed, if it had only been claimed in pro-Russian sources I would agree with you and remove it just as you removed the 150 rebels claim. However, I thought it should be mentioned, as a claim, since it has been picked up on other non-Russian and non-Ukrainian news sources. EkoGraf (talk) 19:40, 27 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I just added sources which attribute the claims on the civilians to the persons who made them. EkoGraf (talk) 19:41, 27 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

thanks I'll take your word for it on the 38 part but I only read 48 today. Has the 50 civilians line been picked up elsewhere? Even still, it's coming from a rebel leader trying to rally support for his cause...have any independent media validated any more than 2 civilians dead?--Львівське (говорити) 19:45, 27 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I removed the part on the rebel claim about the counter attack since the original news report has been updated and I cann't find the original anymore. Many foreign news media have picked up on the 100 claim at the moment, like the sources I added to the paragraph (New York Times, Sentinel Enterprise, the Hindu, etc). As for the 40 stated by the mayor, I added a new source from the Lebanese Daily star stating exactly that. EkoGraf (talk) 19:51, 27 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

is the lebanese daily star a reliable source? --Львівське (говорити) 20:03, 27 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hasn't anybody started an article on the airport battle yet? The paragraph is starting to get rather large. EkoGraf (talk) 20:00, 27 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

dont think so. i dont have time, I'm more hit and run at the moment if I see something on the ticker to quickly add, sorry --Львівське (говорити) 20:03, 27 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Read source here [11], he didn't say 34 were killed in the battle, he said 34 bodies of those who were killed were sent back to Russia. EkoGraf (talk) 13:51, 30 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

ah, i see, so he's saying 34 were recovered but more were there? or at least is that implied? --Львівське (говорити) 14:02, 30 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

He said 34 of the dead were repatriated to Russia. The BBC itself reported yesterday 33 were Russian nationals. Borodai also said the day after the battle when he stated 50 died that they couldn't recover all the bodies, just like he said today. The morgue contained less than 40 so he probably ment the remaining 10 or so for the full 50 were still lying around the airport. EkoGraf (talk) 14:07, 30 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

i understand now, thanks! --Львівське (говорити) 14:24, 30 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

It appears that the team that was abducted on 26 May hasn't been in contact with the OSCE since [12], and another group was detained on the 29th. Have you heard anything about this situation? I was going to write a bit to add to the unrest article. RGloucester — ☎ 04:14, 1 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I added what little I've read to the Sloviansk standoff article. Haven't heard much else, the whole Vostok/airport thing distracted me.--LeVivsky (ಠ_ಠ) 04:39, 1 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding Pushilin quote regarding the 6 rebels killed on May 31, they may very well have been trying to retake the airport but Pushilin's quote does not say that, and the text in question in the timeline article is about what Pushilin stated. In Pushilin's quote, "Our boys" refers to the 6 killed. "They died trying to take back the Ukrainian airport" refers to those whose bodies the 6 were trying to recover, who had already been killed. When he says "our boys were trying to get their bodies out", "their" is referring to the same people as "They died" is.--Tdl1060 (talk) 20:08, 1 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

i dont think it's that clear - he said re-take the airport --LeVivsky (ಠ_ಠ) 22:00, 1 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with Tdl1060. The source is pretty clear, They died trying to take back the Ukrainian airport, and our boys were trying to get their bodies out. Our boys refers to the six guys, and They died trying to take back the Ukrainian airport refers to the ones whose bodies they were trying to recover. And in regard to your concern about he said re-take the airport, I would remind you that during the battle for the airport, there was a rebel counter-attack in the evening in an attempt to recapture the airport after they lost it earlier in the day and most of the rebel fatalities occurred during that very same counter-attack. And if you still have doubts than read the very first Reuters paragraph - Ukrainian separatist leader Denis Pushilin said on Saturday six rebels had been killed while trying to collect the bodies of comrades who had died under Ukrainian army fire earlier this week close to Donetsk airport.. Cann't be more clearer than that. EkoGraf (talk) 18:47, 3 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

"The native population has always been Ukrainian and Ukrainian speaking, and the city was founded by Ukrainians. What the dominant language of the occupying regime in the 1930s or whatever was is neither here nor there" - please learn.Xx236 (talk) 09:56, 2 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

what? --LeVivsky (ಠ_ಠ) 17:24, 2 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Drezno was founded by Polish tribesmen and Варшава in turn was founded by protoukrainian clansmen. A pot calling the kettle black one could say. Just a few notes before leaving the disintegrating project for good... Donbass Patriot Man (talk) 18:18, 2 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

What in the hell? --LeVivsky (ಠ_ಠ) 18:28, 2 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Timeline of the 2014 pro-Russian conflict in Ukraine, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Drone (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 08:54, 3 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I would ask that you do not add figures (500 dead and 1,500 wounded rebels) that are being reported by only a few sources (only 1 in this case) and that are not neutral (heavily pro-Ukrainian news site citing an unknown ATO source). If the figure catches on and is reported by neutral news services than we insert it. For example the 300 figure which is being reported and has been even corrected by Reuters and even one pro-Ukrainian news site of being the number of both killed AND wounded, and not just killed, with Reuters even reminding it has not been independently verified. EkoGraf (talk) 18:40, 3 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

If I screwed up, just fix it, I'm not doing it on purpose.--LeVivsky (ಠ_ಠ) 19:06, 3 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Didn't accuse you of anything, I'm sorry if you got that impression. EkoGraf (talk) 20:12, 3 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

no no, not saying you are accusing me, just telling you that it wasnt intentional to use a non neutral source or anything like that. I guess I was reading too quickly and overlooked it, sorry --LeVivsky (ಠ_ಠ) 20:17, 3 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Natalia_Poklonskaya

Here's an example of her fan base www.reddit.com/r/nataliapoklonskaya/

I just don't understand how she can attract such a following just because of her looks. Stalin was pretty attractive when he was young but I've never seen anyone justify his actions because of that. http://37.media.tumblr.com/tumblr_lw7qxcjwGQ1qeu6ilo1_400.jpg Fungal vexation (talk) 00:06, 5 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I wrote "If a party founded by Parubiy is just trivia decrare trivia everything that anyone that anyone from the other side have said in the past and denied later"... I mean "If a party founded by Parubiy is just trivia, DECLARE trivia everything WHATEVER anyone from the other side have said in the past and past and denied later." Many times I write fast, and the restrictions of space don't help, sorry. By the way, good luck for the NPD! (Now, I've noticed they're the 2nd party in Canada! :)) User:MondolkirMondolkiri1 (talk) 02:04, 8 June 2014 (UTC)[[[User:Mondolkiri1|Mondolkiri1]] (talk) 02:06, 8 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

When there is no references to fascism in this article, as well as to the Liberal Democratic Party in the infobox, because of one flag, I will consider the past associassions of Parubiy as "trivia".[[[User:Mondolkiri1|Mondolkiri1]] (talk) 06:38, 8 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

you're not making a coherent argument. This is like saying "Petero Porshenko, founder of the Party of Regions" - which is stupid and out of context. --LeVivsky (ಠ_ಠ) 07:19, 8 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

putin-western junta propaganda to kill people ukraines and russias and americans and westerns peoples to kill by putin-western juntas in donyetsk and all to launc hattack on human people in non-junta mind with such people enemy obama enemy putin enemy abe of tokyo juntas all led by putin chief junta chairman of junta-western-putin alliance in charge of minister of information azrael who propaganda juntas the page to make putin juntas more viewpoint advanced like western-putin juntas advance by both sides is to attack people and humans in wordl and putins junta junta is in charge of western junta too and all to kill enemeies in huamns liek you defender of the trueth you to kill thou to kill juntas? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.190.19.205 (talk) 01:08, 9 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

You have given zero sources, and have said "junta" thirteen times, excluding the title. Aside from that, I don't understand what you are saying or what your edit summary on 2014 pro-Russian conflict in Ukraine was saying. Dustin (talk) 01:16, 9 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

junta junta junta junta junta junta junta junta junta junta junta junta junta junta junta junta junta junta junta junta junta junta junta junta junta junta junta junta junta junta junta junta junta junta junta junta junta junta junta junta junta junta junta junta junta junta junta junta junta junta junta junta junta junta junta junta junta junta junta junta junta junta junta junta junta junta junta junta junta junta junta junta junta junta junta junta junta junta junta junta junta junta junta junta junta junta junta junta junta junta junta junta junta junta junta junta junta junta junta junta junta junta junta junta junta junta junta junta junta junta junta junta junta junta junta junta junta junta junta junta junta junta junta junta junta junta junta junta junta junta junta junta junta junta junta junta junta junta junta junta junta junta junta junta junta junta junta junta junta junta junta junta junta junta junta junta junta junta junta junta junta junta junta junta junta junta junta junta junta junta junta junta junta junta junta junta junta junta junta junta junta junta junta junta junta junta junta junta junta junta junta junta junta junta junta junta junta junta junta junta junta junta junta junta junta junta junta junta junta junta junta junta junta junta junta junta junta junta junta junta junta junta junta junta junta junta junta junta junta junta junta junta junta junta junta junta junta junta junta junta junta junta junta junta junta junta junta junta junta junta junta junta junta junta junta junta junta junta junta junta junta junta junta junta junta junta --LeVivsky (ಠ_ಠ) 01:55, 9 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]