User talk:Warofdreams/2008/10-12

Archives

Warofdreams/2003 Warofdreams/2004/01-06 Warofdreams/2004/07-12 Warofdreams/2005/01-06 Warofdreams/2005/07-12 Warofdreams/2006/01-06 Warofdreams/2006/07-12 Warofdreams/2007/01-03 Warofdreams/2007/04-06 Warofdreams/2007/07-09 Warofdreams/2007/10-12 Warofdreams/2008/01-03 Warofdreams/2008/04-06 Warofdreams/2008/07-09 Warofdreams/2008/10-12 Warofdreams/2009/01-03 Warofdreams/2009/04-06 Warofdreams/2009/07-09 Warofdreams/2009/10-12 Warofdreams/2010 Warofdreams/2011 Warofdreams/2012 Warofdreams/2013 Warofdreams/2014 Warofdreams/2015 Warofdreams/2016 Warofdreams/2017 Warofdreams/2018 Warofdreams/2019 Warofdreams/2020 Warofdreams/2021 Warofdreams/2022 Warofdreams/2023 Warofdreams/Party candidate records

Hi

Two things

1. Nice additions to Derbyshire articles ie about crosses etc
2. Missed the vote - well done. I have an interest in seeing if we can get some UK Ltd stuff out of copyright. Good luck Victuallers (talk) 10:29, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

New Communist Party of Britain

Hello Warofdreams. I am quite new to Wiki, but have taken on trying to sort out the NCPB entry as best I can following the deletion discussion. I am interested in the British left generally, and specifically the NCPB as a regular reader of the New Worker.

I have been adding references as requested. I dont have access to some acedemic papers, but have added as many 3rd party references as I can.

Unfortunately the edit war with Troublemaker1973 is ongoing, and depited repeated requests he does not reference his edits, or discuss them. I would appreciate your advice on how to deal with this matter, as there are some changes I would like to make to the entry, but don't want to get into a constant revert war without any reasoned discussion.

Thank you. 86.130.249.184 (talk) 11:59, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

Sorry - forgot to sign in Grauniad100 (talk) 12:00, 6 October 2008 (UTC) HI again.

DYK for William Long (politician)

On 12 October, 2008, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article William Long (politician), which you created or substantially expanded. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

– RyanCross (talk) 00:01, 12 October 2008 (UTC)

Urban75

HI - my edits on urban75 were perfectly correct. thanks

see the messageboard for proof! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.132.114.209 (talk) 15:24, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

releveant thread here;

http://www.safeforwork.net/index.php/1010110A/3880ba48b4db12c8e3deb11b75a0bd7c7e8b502fe599f7652f6b46a0cd609a5d8e9a09283ff6f48e7dbb7c2019183cc0f216d45a990b18444 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.132.114.209 (talk) 16:27, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

re Trans-Saharan trade

See Talk:Trans-Saharan trade#West vs Subsaharan Africa. Thanks, BanyanTree 23:02, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

Thanks!

		The Reference Desk Barnstar
		Thank you for answering my IQ question on the Reference Desk! --Ye Olde Luke (talk) 01:46, 17 October 2008 (UTC)

DYK for Robin Bailie

On 20 October, 2008, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Robin Bailie, which you created or substantially expanded. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

Keep up the good work! ~ User:Ameliorate! ^{(with the !) (talk)} 01:24, 20 October 2008 (UTC)

Ivan Neil

Was a huge gap in WP, well done! I take it you couldnt lay your hands on his autobiography?Traditional unionist (talk) 19:45, 21 October 2008 (UTC)

That'd be good. it wasn't necessarily that it was unreferenced, I have quite a high tolerance of unreferenced material to be honest, but it was the fact that a lot of it was nonsense and irrelevant even if it were true.Traditional unionist (talk) 17:07, 22 October 2008 (UTC)

Paradise square

Hi, I have a couple of questions regarding the paradise square article. Firstly, do you have a source for the statement you put in a footnote that Nikolaus Pevsner was wrong. I am sure that this is true, but I can't find a good source. Leader, 1876 p.3, includes a debate as to whether the east side was constructed in 1736 or 1776, and also states that the east side was built by Thomas Broadbent, which is confusing. Secondly, I think that you know a lot about the chartists in Sheffield—do you know whether the September 1838 meeting took place in Paradise Square, or somewhere else. I can't find agreement amongst various sources. Thanks, —Jeremy (talk) 18:23, 23 October 2008 (UTC)

That's what I thought, and certainly the few modern sources that I can find would seem to agree that the meeting was in Paradise Square, but Thomas' Local Register [1] includes a timeline of 1838 on p.314 that, as far as I can tell, was compiled in 1838, which says that the meeting on 25 September took place in Roscoe Field (where-ever that was). Philips' Memoirs of Ebenezer Eliott [2] on p. 101 also gives the meeting place as Roscoe Field, and I have a cutting from the Morning Chroncile of 28 Sept 1838 (which says that it is abridged from the Sheffield Iris) that reports the text of some of the speeches, and Isaac Ironside is reported to have said "Eight years ago the rational and practical Reformers of Sheffield met in Paradise-square...", which seems to me an odd way to phrase it if he were delivering his speech in Paradise Square. So at the moment the contemporary sources that I have appear to contradict the more modern sources. Any idea of how to get a definitive answer? Thanks, —Jeremy (talk) 03:57, 24 October 2008 (UTC)

Yes, I was also thrown by Suffolk Street, which at first I mistook for Suffolk Road. The 1841 census also has people living at Roscoe Field (with no other street name). This was in Sheffield North, enumeration district 22 in the census, off Malinda Street. Today, Malinda Street intersects with a Roscoe Road so I think that this is the right area. I asked on the Sheffield history forum and someone pointed me to Peter Harvey's Street Names of Sheffield where he apparently says of Roscoe Road that it was "named after Roscoe Fields, a field where meetings were held in the early 19th Century". Thanks,—Jeremy (talk) 22:46, 25 October 2008 (UTC)

Could you be so kind to advice a solution

Some time ago you advice a really useful solution to deal with difficult matters [3]

However, we can, and should ensure that the sources we use are verifiable and either (preferably) have appeared in peer-reviewed journals or publications giving clear indication of a similar level of scholarship, or that they can be shown to be representative of a particular line of thought held by a significant number of people. Where there is some controversy, we should also state who advances the viewpoints we describe.

So

Subtelny's 1988 edition, page 474, first paragraph: "Compared to other underground movements in Nazi-occupied Europe, the UPA was unique in that it had practically no foreign support. Its growth and strength were, therefore, an indication of the very considerable popular support it enjoyed among most Ukrainians."

And Ukrainian Academy of Sciences outside of Western Ukraine, UPA support was minimal, and predominant majority of the Ukrainian population considered the OUN/UPA to have been collaborators with the German oppressors and supplied by them with arms and ammunitions from the beginning of the 1944.

I’ve given as

According to 1988 work of historian Orest Subtelny among the anti-Nazi resistance movements it was unique, in that it had no significant foreign support. Its growth and strength was a reflection of the popularity it enjoyed among most Ukrainians. While, 2004 work of Ukrainian Academy of Sciences conclude what outside of Western Ukraine, UPA support was minimal, and predominant majority of the Ukrainian population considered the OUN/UPA to have been collaborators with the German oppressors and supplied by them with arms and ammunitions from the beginning of the 1944.

Is it correct.

Or should be given as

Among the anti-Nazi resistance movements it was unique in that it had no significant foreign support. Its growth and strength was a reflection of the popularity it enjoyed among the people of Western Ukraine. Outside of Western Ukraine, support was minimal, and the predominant majority of the Soviet Ukrainian population considered the OUN/UPA to have been collaborators with the Germans.

• – see some OR some data which contradict “anti-Nazi resistance movements it was unique in that it had no significant foreign support” version removed.

A same issue with

From areas of Ukrainian Nationalists activity were deported: officially Soviet archives state that between 1944 and 1952 a total of 182,543 people while according to 1988 work of Subtelny, Orest number only for 1944-47 may have been as high as to 500,000.

Areas of UPA activity were depopulated, the estimates on numbers vary, officially Soviet archives state that between 1944 and 1952 a total of 182,543 people while other sources indicate the number may have been as high as to 500,000.

Is it correct to join 1944-52 and 1944-47 data in one sentence without clear mentioned such differences in text? Is it correct to call one source as “sources”. Is it correct to use 1988 text if available 2000 edition of text which actually does not mentioned above mentioned?

Also one more question – how many references from different sources should be provided for fact in order to protect it from replacement it with the info without any references?

Thank you in advance. --Jo0doe (talk) 19:11, 26 October 2008 (UTC)

Let's clear up something. Does the work by the Institute of History of the Ukrainian Academy of Sciences really claim that "predominant majority of the Ukrainian population considered the OUN/UPA to have been collaborators with the German oppressors and supplied by them with arms and ammunitions from the beginning of the 1944"? So the predominant majority of the population thought that the Germans supplied UPA with arms and ammunition from 1944? If so, is the predominant population of Soviet Ukraine a reliable source? OR are you mistranslating?Faustian (talk) 22:21, 26 October 2008 (UTC)

The other interesting point is that you object to the sentance "According to 1988 work of historian Orest Subtelny among the anti-Nazi resistance movements it was unique, in that it had no significant foreign support." Are you suggesting that the Institute of History's work that you reference suggests that the Germans armed UPA for "anti-Nazi resistence"?Faustian (talk) 02:31, 27 October 2008 (UTC)

Dead-end or not

Again I try to implement your recommendations in the article [4] – but again it were reverted by group of Ukrainian Diaspora editors. The main issue in brief described in words of Historians – and called A Blank Spot in the Collective Memory of the Ukrainian Diaspora [5]. So all edited by me articles which contradict with this “Blank Spots” initiated an edit-warring. Proclamation_of_Ukrainian_statehood,_1941, Massacres of Poles in Volhynia, Ukrainian Insurgent Army‎ . ‎ It’s look like one against many but united by the Collective Memory. Such edit warring can be very simply stopped – if follow basics WP:Principles WP:V, WP:RS, WP:NPOV - WP:UNDUE. But, as last year depict – it’s not easy to do. Unfortunately it’s quite complex and not widely known page of WWII history so – most of available WP:RS are not English, while most of available English sources reflect a Blank Spot in the Collective Memory. However some Spots can be easily fixed with many available sources about Nazi anti-partisan activities and Waffen-SS military history as for instance *Alexander Dallin German Rule in Russia: 1941-1945 A study of occupational Policies (London Macmillan, 1957) *Die Wehrmacht:Mythos and Realitat ed. Rolf-Dieter Muller and Hans-Erich Volkmann (Munich Oldenburg Verlag, 1999)

• Ben Shepherd, War in the Wild East German Army and Soviet Partisans (Cambridge and London Harvard University press 2004)
• Hannes Heer and Klaus Naumann eds, War of Extermination: The German military in the World War II 1941-44 (New York Berghahn Books 2000).
• Die faschistiche Okkupationspolitik in den zeituweilig besetzen Gebeiten der Sowijetunon (1941-1944) (Berlin: Deutscher Verlag der Wissrnschafen, 1991
• Norman M. Naimark, Fires of Hatred: Ethnic Cleansing in Twentieth-Century Europe (Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 2001)
• Karel Berkhoff. Harvest of the Despair: Life and Death in the Ukraine under Nazi Rule. Cambridge / London: Harvard University Press, 2004.
• Timothy Patrick Mulligan, The Politics of Illusion and Empire: German Occupation Policy in the Soviet Union (New York: Praeger, 1998);
• Christian Gerlach, Kalkulierte Morde: Die deutsche Wirtschaft- und Vernichtungspolitik in Weisrussland 1941-1944 (Hamburg: Hamburger Edition, 1999);
• Wendy Lower, Nazi Empire-Building and the Holocaust in Ukraine (Chapel Hill: University of North Carolina Press, 2005).

So could you advice an place were can be found a WP-editors (administrators) which can be assist in the fixing ”Spots” in WP. RfC does not have any results so far10:17, 29 October 2008 (UTC)

Most of the work that the editor objects to and that he presents as reflecting "a Blank Spot in the Collective Memory" are published by for example University of Toronto Press or this extensive and excellent English-language work by a specialist in the specific field, Dr. Jeffrey Burds, whose webpage is here: [6] and CV is here: [7]. Feel free to read Burds' work; it's available online and as you can see carries no POV: [8] and [9]. The particular editor above has engaged in revert warring with multiple other editors and refused to work collaboratively with them - just read the lengthy archived talk pages for this article. He falsely claims that all the other editors are members of the Ukrainian community aborad (as if there is something wrong with the idea of Ukrainians abroad being particularly interested in the history of their ancestral country), but at least one Swedish guy, User:Narking, seems to have been drawn into the edit warring perpetrated by the editor I'm responding to. Inded, when considering Jo0doe (talk) 's complaints it would be helpful to examine his edit history and contribuitions (new articles, awards, expansion of articles, history of collaborative editing, etc.) to those of people with whom he engages in revert wars such as me, User:Bandurist, User:Narking, etc.

Here is a good summary of the disruptive behavior engaged in by the above editor: [10]. Its important to note his engagement in cherry-picking sources that cannot be verified by the English-speaking reader.

Just look at his edit history: either arguing on talk pages or engagement in revert warring on a few articles: [11]. It should be noted that he has been warned multiple times for his behavior: [12] and [13] and [14].Faustian (talk) Personally, I would rather be writing new articles than spending time trying to maintain the integrity of an article I made many contributions to. 14:16, 29 October 2008 (UTC)

And it just happened again on the article's talk page (I'll cut and paste it here for you):

See ref and article text - and also See p.182 – "no full documented evidence about number of UPA battles with Germans". Conclusion described what UPA activity against Nazi’s was minimal and general strategy of OUN/UPA oriented to avoid of clashes with Nazis – and act predominantly against poles and soviet - see specifically devoted to this “strategy” sub-chapter 3. P174-180 Jo0doe (talk) 07:42, 29 October 2008 (UTC)

More cherry-picking. Page 182 [15] states that there is no full documentary evidence of UPA battles against the Germans. Not that such battles didn't exist but that we don't know how many there were. So, you dishonestly presented the infromation in the page based on part of a sentence taken out of context. The the rest of the page then describes several of those battles. Thanks for demonstrating how dishonestly you use the source. Third paragraph from the bottom states that the German administrtion reported losing control to nationalism and communist partisans north of Zhitomir. Page 183, second paragraph, states that the Communist partisans themselves admitted that the nationalists enagaged against "German robbery and terror" of the Ukrainian population.Faustian (talk) 14:41, 29 October 2008 (UTC)

And an update. Now it seems a Polish editor has found it necessary to revert Jo0doe (talk)'s disruptive edits: [16].Faustian (talk) 02:25, 30 October 2008 (UTC)

• [17] --Jo0doe (talk) 09:45, 30 October 2008 (UTC)

So again a text attack – look like editor is familiar with psychology.

So a citation from Kerstin Jobst of the University of Salzburg

Universities in the United States of America and Canada like Harvard, Toronto, and Edmonton have been for many years--thanks to a well-to-do North-American-based Ukrainian diaspora--the centers of historical Ukrainian studies.

I actually not object to “maskirovka units” (word construction which has any sense used by Associate Professor of History, Northeastern University) I simply would like to indicate in the article the source which claimed over 250,000 people were arrested in Western Ukraine if the Ukrainian Academy of Sciences limited this number to approximately 28,000 “proponents of Ukrainian nationalists”. And in addition to claims about 11,725 Soviet officers, agents and collaborators were assassinated and 2,401 were "missing", presumed kidnapped – I’ve add Ukrainian Academy of Sciences break down – were 3-4 thousands were different soviet official (of them 2+K of soviet soldiers and officers by Red Army which killed in 1944 in front rear).While the rest are civilians (mostly women – as mentioned by Associate Professor of History, Northeastern University work) allegedly nominated as collaborators – examples of “collaboration” also gratefully provided by same author in work [18]

brutal reprisals carried out by SB units against women suspected of “pro- Soviet sympathies” - heartily welcoming of Red Army soldiers, feeding them, allow them to stay in house, be a family member of mobilized Red Army soldiers etc . In village Diadkovichi SB unit murdered Sofia PAVLIUK, who heartily welcomed soldiers of the advancing Red Army.” “On the night of 19 September [1944] in the village Bolshaia-Osneshcha, Kolkovskyi raion the STRESHA band murdered four women, in whose apartments lived Red Army soldiers.” “On the night of 23 September [1944] in village Mikhlin, Senkovichi raion, a SB unit of four persons killed four women and injured one. [The women] had gotten together to write letters to their husbands and sons [serving] in the Red Army.” While targets of SB violence were certainly not exclusively women and girls, a close look at patterns of rebel violence against local citizens suggests that reprisals against “collaborators” was a euphemism for violence against ethnic Poles during World War II and the first two postwar years, when three quarters of the violence against “locals” was directed against ethnic Poles.

Brutality action were not halted until full extermination of OUN/UPA SB units – even in 21 June 1948 at Lviv State University stable Soviet investigators uncovered eighteen naked and mutilated corpses — seventeen women and one adolescent boy which were killed since November 1947 by OUN/UPA SB unit. Nearly all of the corpses were so badly decomposed that only six could be identified by family members (mainly through personal objects or clothing). In each case, the victim had been beaten to death on the back of the skull with an ax, hammer, or pipe. As a reflection of the macabre ritual interrogation that usually preceded SB executions of “suspected collaborators”, one corpse still had more than a meter of noose around her neck. SB assassination squad responsible for such crime had nine members, and acted on the direct instructions of the commander of an UPA regiment based in a nearby forest. All of the executions had been perpetrated under orders. One of the SB unit members had been recruited into the unit by an old friend, an officer from the Ukrainian SS Galicia Division, who was arrested in 1946.

Interesting – isn`t? As regards to user:Narking – his intend to use WP:QS ^ The Restoration of the Ukrainian State in World War II. Published by Ukrainian Central Information Service, London 1987. ISBN 0-902322-35-4. – hardly to nominate as good editing especially when he return hoaxes of others Jo0doe (talk) 09:42, 30 October 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for saving me the trouble of posting, at length, Burds' excellent and rivetting description of UPA brutality. That pretty much debunks your implication that Burds engages in whitewashing of UPA crimes or spreading pro-UPA propaganda, which is what you do when you question his figure of 250,000 people deported by the Soviets from western Ukraine or question his figure of approximately "11,725 Soviet officers, agents and collaborators" being assassinated.

This it the issue at the heart of the conflict. You push a one-sided POV, while I strive to be objective. In addition to your disruptions, I've also reverted attempts, presumably by Ukrainian nationalists, to remove ugly details of UPA crimes from the article. You cherry pick information from various sources, use original research to try to discredit perfectly reliable sources that you don't like (i.e., use an article saying something negative about the Ukrainian community on North America, to then remove info taken from the work of a professor at a leading Western University published by the university, because he happens to be of Ukrainian descent), to push your one-sided POV, all in the context of very poor grammar that make articles you touch almost incomprehensible and a series of nasty arguments on the talk pages. This is why you find yourself reverted by a large number of editors.Faustian (talk) 13:40, 30 October 2008 (UTC)

I will now end this conversation for the time being, to give the talk page's owner a chance to absorb what has been said rather than overload his page with these arguments, as has been happening on the article talk pages.Faustian (talk) 13:42, 30 October 2008 (UTC)

It’s really sad to note what so many effort were given to put others in misconception – and not at all effort traced to fix some typing errors of others. Even in assistance in one correct translation were refused -[19]. As regards Associate Professor of History, Northeastern University – see his foreword to his recent published compilation of his old articles. Indeed interesting to see why sole editor nominate as POV presenting of two and more scholars opinions instead of exclusively Associate Professor of History, Northeastern University opinion from work which does not devoted specifically to article topic. As regards some actions by editor – again “ugly details” in article misrepresented as an “reprisal to closing schools” instead of large scale planned ethical cleaning perpetrated by specific formation and organization. Adding

Polish-Ukrainian hatred was often provoked by Soviet forces,

Without mentioning author of claim and period about which claimed simply mislead visitors.

again would be interesting to find out support for claims about

remove info taken from the work of a professor… because he happens to be of Ukrainian descent.

series of nasty arguments on the talk pages

Again and again – see WP:UNDEW were in article should not be rewrite a majority view strictly from a minority (Blank Spot in the Collective Memory of the Ukrainian Diaspora ) view. So group of editors (united by Collective Memory )which did not like to see in article facts like

• Ribbentrop “… uprising [In Galiscian Ukraine] should be staged that all farms and dwelling of the Poles should go up in flames, and all Jews be killed.” IMT Vol II p.448
• Lahausen: “…Organizations of National Ukrainians with which Amt Abwehr cooperated along military lines, and which were to bring about an uprising in Poland, an uprising which aimed exterminate the Poles and Jews…” IMT Vol II p.478
• Keitel: “You, Canaris, have to promote an uprising with the aid of the Ukrainian organizations which are working with you and which have same objectives, namely, the Poles and the Jews.”

IMT Vol III p.21

• Exhibit USA-290 (Document 3257-PS) “…Specially detached formation of police executed a planned shooting of Jews. This action as a rule proceeded from east to west. It was done entirely in the public with the use of the Ukrainian militia… So far about 150,000 to 200,000 Jews may have been executed in the part of Ukraine belonging to Reichskommissariat.” IMT Vol III p.564
• Exhibit USA-494 (Document 2992-PS) Anti-Jewish action at the town of Rovno, Ukraine July 13 1942. During the night of 13 July 1942 all inhabitants of the Rovno ghetto, there were still about 5,000 Jews, were liquidated… ghetto was encircled by a large SS detachment and three times as many members of the Ukrainian militia.

SS and militia broke the windows, forced the doors with beams and crowbars and entered the houses… Women carried their dead children in their arms, children pulled and dragged their dead parents by their arms and legs down to the road… Again and again the cries “Open the door! Open the door! Echoed through ghetto.” On 2 June the 49 Mountaineer Corps took steps against the maltreatment of Jews by the local Ukrainians at Lemberg Vol XXI p.401 Affidavits 1602, 1603 and 1604

The Einsatzgruppen composed of members of the SD, SS, the Kripo, the Gestapo, the Order Police of emergency draftees and of indigenous forces. Vol XXI p.513

Becouse accordingly to adopted community myth prefer to recognize a myths – like O14-USSR documents – which matched “unique anti-Nazi resistance movement “ fringe theory. And in general refuse to acknowledge the existence of real IMT document - USSR-14 (IMT Vol XXI) in which actually placed a

Directives for the Selection of Soviet Russian prisoners of warJo0doe (talk) 09

11, 31 October 2008 (UTC)

ETA

Firstly good work on completing the Stormont constituencies. Secondly I wonder if you could consider semi-protecting the ETA article? It's being slow edit warred by IP editors who are adding terrorist in contravention of wp:words to avoid and the talkpage consensus that terrorist is mentioned in its proper place and attributed in an NPOV way. Thanks, Valenciano (talk) 17:21, 6 November 2008 (UTC)

Hi Warofdreams, it is my opinion, Valenciano was the one doing edit warring. I reverted once, other IP editors reverted other times. There is a group of editors at ETA that are acting together as wp:own to block use of terrorist that is very well sourced and they are telling newcomers WP:TERRORIST is a law when it is a style guideline. I think it is good you encourage discussion at the talk it is needed but I do not know it is good to stop IPs from editing when it was Valenciano who was warring and may be wp:own. Thank you RetroS1mone talk 02:59, 7 November 2008 (UTC)

OK that's great, thank you for your message I put my views on the talk page at ETA. Thx RetroS1mone talk 03:15, 7 November 2008 (UTC)

Thanks Warofdreams. Retro, as for your opinions no one was trying to block use of terrorist in fact it's mentioned in the lead, properly attributed per policy NPOV and RS. The appearance of a number of single purpose IP accounts, all pushing the same POV is, to put it mildly, suspect - anyway I've replied to you on your talkpage. Valenciano (talk) 08:40, 7 November 2008 (UTC)

Northern Ireland council elections results

Good job on creating these, however I noticed that some of the results are wrong - not your fault as the reason seems to be that the headline results on ark are wrong. On the 1989 page for example [20] the wrong results are the ones in the "results by party" section whereas the correct results (which are different) are in the "results by council" section(!) Anyway I've amended the 1989 results and will have a go at expanding the rest over the course of the next week. All the best, Valenciano (talk) 20:52, 10 November 2008 (UTC)

DYK for Sheffield Iris

On 13 November, 2008, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Sheffield Iris, which you created or substantially expanded. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

—Politizer ^talk/_contribs 23:38, 13 November 2008 (UTC)

Note

Because if it's not there, inexperienced updaters will often create updates with no US hooks in them, leaving the next guy too many US hooks to get rid of. Or else they will use all US hooks themselves.

It was a recurring problem for DYK before that notice was put there, and since it's been there I've almost never had to change the mix. As it happens, we've been getting more foreign hooks lately, so it's not as much a problem as it was, but I still go to the suggestions page quite often and find that there's a bunch of US hooks accumulating. Gatoclass (talk) 12:42, 17 November 2008 (UTC)

Need your advice

Again my edits in article related to OUN-B and it secsessor Congress of Free Ukrainians removed my data under different spices. [21] [22] [23] [24] [25] [26] [27]. Things are removed - a documented link between Nazi and OUN-B actions and "tail" of OUN-B secsessor. Could you please advice me a solution in this matter - does anyone can assist me in fixing some of my typo instead of blanking and replace correct Wiki link - new order in Europe and Moscovite with a to new order in Europe Moscovite - So at least this side of my edits will not be a Casus belli. Thank you again for your very usefull advice in the past Jo0doe (talk) 16:33, 19 November 2008 (UTC)

You are engaging in a one-man low-level revert war (not violating 3R) against virtually every other editor active on those pages despite having been warned not to do so: [28]. Indeed, a quick glance at your contribution history [29] reveals that your sum "contributions" consist of either this edit warring or engaging in nasty arguments with numerous users whom you accuse of "hoaxing" or "vandalism": [30][31].Faustian (talk) 02:28, 20 November 2008 (UTC)

[32] - ad hominem instead ad rem.

reverting my edits and inserting hoaxes listed [33] can not be nominated as "active editors". "Nasty" - means historical facts from highly graded RS - [34] - lool like editors cooperative simply don't like to have a WP as a reliable source - better to hide out tha facts that genocide became the tool of Ukrainian nationalist dreams, laying the foundations for a prospective – and chimerical – Ukrainian state on the basis of conquest, subjugation and, ultimately, the annihilation of Ukraine’s principal enemies in eastern Ukraine – Jews and Poles. And similar other facts removedJo0doe (talk) 06:51, 20 November 2008 (UTC)

Actually articles contain plenty of info about crimes committed by nationalists. Just not enough to your personal liking, and thus your personal one-man edit war against virtually every other active editor. Your false accusations about "cooperative" notwithstanding. As for compalints about ad hominem - that is funny given your comparison to other editors as Nazi collaborators, vandals, and hoaxers [35] [36]. But, I suppose, clowns are supposed to be funny. Faustian (talk) 13:37, 20 November 2008 (UTC)

AG for NI

Thanks for completing the list of former office-holders. Mooretwin (talk) 09:01, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

Wikimedia UK Newsletter - November 2008 Issue

Summary: Wikimedians in the United Kingdom are working to set up a chapter of the Wikimedia Foundation, which will aid and encourage people to collect, develop and effectively disseminate knowledge. A board of five members has been elected, and a company has now been set up. Membership applications are now invited, and will be processed as soon as we have a bank account. The organisation needs the support and involvement of people like you.

In this month's newsletter:

1. Creating a chapter
2. Elections
3. Status of Company Formation
4. Membership
5. Getting involved

Wiki UK Limited is a Company Limited by Guarantee registered in England and Wales, Registered No. 6741827. The Registered Office is at 23 Cartwright Way, Nottingham, NG9 1RL.

Note

I think it's fine as it is. Gatoclass (talk) 23:24, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

Yes I do have a specific objection to your proposed change. It is simply not reasonable to expect users to try and ensure that "the subjects of the hooks should roughly match the mixture of those on the suggestions page". Nobody has the time to go through the suggestions page trying to figure out what "mixture of hooks" currently exists, so adding such a note can only confuse people.

In practice there are only a couple of areas that tend to be overrepresented on the suggestions page, US hooks being the main one, so there is little point in extending the note in the way you propose. The note as it stands has worked very well since it was added and I see no reason to alter it. Gatoclass (talk) 00:01, 25 November 2008 (UTC)

Your advice is very appreciated

Editor which was unable to comprehend my attempt to Communicate (see WP:TALK [37] A week ago familiarize me with [38] by [39] As far as I can see, this possible happened due the genuine dispute over the sources and contents – I’ve added at article talk page [40] [41] while mentioned book does not even mentioned such. – while respected scholars which studied the Soviet economy of 20-30s and published many works on that topic nominate the mentioned above book author as “He misuses sources, he twists everything” [42]. As far as added by me economical data related to the specific event now extensively removed from articles [43] [44] [45] [46] [47] [48] and soon will be removed from WP. I kindly ask you to advice me how long I should wait for specific explanation about my “largely of violations of WP:TALK and WP:SOAPBOX” as mentioned for a cause of indefinitely blocking . I also need you advice about historical article sources – should it be based on scholar works devoted to specific period or on the soap box speeches started from early 1980s and after recession - from 2000s – as supposed here [49]. Thank youJo0doe (talk) 07:11, 5 December 2008 (UTC)

My issue "resolved" - "no person - no problems"

Simply lead to [50]

[51]

My edits [52] [53] [54]

Despite this [55]

Almost all my edits was used in article. [56]

My desperate attempts to get a page numbers,RS sources and follow the WP:rules from virtually same cooperative of editors at articles Gleaning, UIA and 14th_Waffen_Grenadier_Division_of_the_SS_Galicia_(1st_Ukrainian) again has no results.

Unfortunatelly.. But it really sad to note a “double standards” and “soapbox charged” approach at some WP participants. So again thank you for your assistance in the past – it was really useful and really able to resolve many issues on articles with controversial topics.Thank you (Jo0Doe)213.159.241.196 (talk) 10:07, 18 December 2008 (UTC)

He has been repeatedly disuptive and uncivil over a period of many months. He was given a "last warning" by an admin back in June: [57] "Assumptions of bad faith, sterile edit warring, incivility is not the method to push your views into the article. In fact if your opponents were a little bit less noble they could easily arrange a permanent block for you just on the pattern of behavior...Consider it is a last warning, next time I would have to use my block button." Yet despite this warning he continued in such behavior. The mess on the talk page of this article is very revealing: [58]. Out of dozens of examples just within the past couple of weeks we can look at this section heading, "A hoax": [59] in which Jo0doe essentially accuses another editor of being a liar (so much for civility, assumptions of good faith, etc.). He then takes up a lot of time by making numerous accusations that are then debunked in the conversation, being uncivil along the way. For example, he objected to the phrase "The Division's prime organizer and highest ranking officer, Dmytro Paliiv, had been a leader of a small legal political party in pre-war Poland, and many of his colleagues had been members of the pre-war moderate, left-leaning democratic UNDO movement [4] [5] that before the war had been opposed to the authoritarian Organization of Ukrainian Nationalists" by claiming that the source in the reference (Armstrong's Ukrainian Nationalism, published by Columbia University Press, page 170-175) did not describe UNDO as democratic moderate etc. I tried to explain to him that wikipedia articles ought to be understandable for the general public and so a brief description of UNDO is warranted so the reader knows what it is. Jo0doe replied with his rude sarcasm "So - you engage in OR and fix it through Armstrong - charming." In reposne I added references to UNDO's democratic nature, from another source (Snyder's recent book published by Yale University Press) as well as from Armstrong himself (page 18 of the same book). This eventually led to this lengthy conversation: [60].

We see how much time was spent (wasted) on one sentence. This pattern is continuous and is one of the reasons that Jo0doe was banned from the topic of Holodomor. It's called tendentious editing.

Another example, misusing a source: [61]. Etc. etc. Clearly, Jo0doe's response to the ban was not to change his ways and learn from it but to continue to engage in the same behavior but on different articles, leading to the block. Faustian (talk) 13:27, 18 December 2008 (UTC)

Nice try with Austrian “officer approach” (put other in misconception by distort the matter of dispute) while my “hoax notes” (A hoax is a deliberate attempt to dupe, deceive or trick an audience into believing, or accepting, that something is real, when in fact it is not; or that something is true, when in fact it is false.) was related to edits [62] referenced through John A. Armstrong. (1963). Ukrainian Nationalism. New York: Columbia University Press, pp. 170-175 and

• Institute of History of the Ukrainian Academy of Sciences in its work on the Organization of Ukrainian Nationalists and UPA

So actually what appeared now in article – indeed it was proven as true that almost all actually does not appeared at pages 170-175 of Armstrong, and there no Institute of History concluded that "the SS… Still I was unable to defend WP:reliablity on facts and figures [63] see page 60 of the book – and see my at least 3 desperate attempts to make WP as a reliable source. [64] [65]

• So – no mentioned info at pages 170-175 as claimed,
• No Institute of History of the Ukrainian conclude

does my proved by facts claim was false? -

So editor have book and have been warned to fix article text per scholar text – so no effort exist only game was placing around irrelevant to article topic UNDO) – while nice “facts” SS Division primary organizer was an UNDO – no Himmler no Alfred Rosenmberg – but UNDO officer – charming WP:Fringe and “unique gem” in WP:reliability crown . As regards Holodomor – see my concern - [66] and see recent – [67] – am this can be called a wp:TALK violation (and rest)? See the “perfect” collection of “famine-genocide” causes – Causes_of_the_Holodomor –which in fact completely contradict with Holodomor article. So adding an economical, demographical and statistical data in “English” WP called WP:TE – while using an SS members apocrypha with “Jewish Elements” for WP articles – it’s a ‘productive editors” way. So – I hope there is something wrong in approach. Jo0Doe213.159.244.137 (talk) 14:16, 18 December 2008 (UTC)

The above is a good taste of what happens on the talk pages. Of course, it's mostly repetitions of claims that were debunked on those talk pages.Faustian (talk) 14:38, 18 December 2008 (UTC)

Hello again!

Hello there! I hope all is well with you, particularly in the run-up to Christmas!

Just a couple of things:

1. Would you be able to create a new locator map for Greater Manchester, akin to Template:Location map United Kingdom Wiltshire, using this image as the background? It's for something I have have planned for the Portal:Greater Manchester as well as WP:GM. I would be very greatful.

2. I don't know if you're aware too, but its dawned on a few of us at WP:UKGEO that the 2009 structural changes to local government in England are set to play heck with some corners of WP. We've started Wikipedia:2009ENGLAND to try and organise things, but this could affect some of the locator maps you set up in 2007/08 for Template:Infobox UK place, and so I thought I'd best give you a nudge about this. Even since starting this message I've realised that the changes will change things like Template:EnglishDistrictPopulation too! Oh dear!

Again, hope you're well. --Jza84 |  Talk  03:15, 20 December 2008 (UTC)

Hello there! Merry Christmas to you too!

Thanks ever so much for the mapping, it's always been beyond me! Regarding the Wales map, I could do something for Wales (provisionally) whilst working on a map for each principal area, however I just had some source material to work from that shows the district boundaries and urban areas. It could even be two sources, so long as I can refer to them. I had loads of options for England, but for Wales I've struggled. Do you know of anywhere online that could help? I could have a Wales one done tomorrow with the right material. --Jza84 |  Talk  02:06, 21 December 2008 (UTC)

I suppose it was a map of Wales showing the prinicpal area boundaries transposed over urban areas, that way I could produce something akin to File:Northern Ireland map - July 2007.png. The English equivalients I used were something along the lines of this, which were fantastic resources. The closest I can find for Wales is at bcomm-wales.gov.uk, but I'm confused as to which are local government boundaries (if any) and which are assembly constituencies. I have asked WP:WALES in the past for help but they failed to provide anything. --Jza84 |  Talk  03:13, 21 December 2008 (UTC)

Excellent! My bed is begging for me right now, but I'll have a proper look at this tomorrow, probably in the evening! About time this was tackled really! Thanks again! --Jza84 |  Talk  03:38, 21 December 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Bureaucrats

Hi! As a bureaucrat on Wikipedia, I'd very much appreciate it if you would fill in your details on the newly updated Bureaucrats page. Thanks! Majorly ^talk 14:30, 20 December 2008 (UTC)

Wikimedia UK Newsletter - December 2008 Issue

Summary: You can now join Wiki UK Ltd, which hopes to become the official UK chapter of Wikimedia in January. The organisation is planning its first Annual General Meeting, where members can vote on who is on the board, and put forward and vote on resolutions. The organisation is already supporting activities such as a bid to hold Wikimania 2010 in Oxford and the exciting Wikipedia Loves Art project at the Victoria and Albert Museum. We also bring you news of the the recent Wikimeet in London.

In this month's newsletter:

1. Chapter formation
2. Membership
3. AGM
4. Wikimania 2010 - Oxford bid
5. Wikipedia Loves Art
6. London Wikimeet

Wiki UK Limited is a Company Limited by Guarantee registered in England and Wales, Registered No. 6741827. The Registered Office is at 23 Cartwright Way, Nottingham, NG9 1RL.

Newsletter delivered by Mike Peel (talk) 16:33, 26 December 2008 (UTC)

Presidents of the Liberal Party

I noticed you added a succession box to the page about Emrys Roberts showing him as President of the Liberal Party but the records I have consulted don't indicate he ever held that office. For the years 1963-64 the office holder was Lord Ogmore. I do not want to start altering these boxes without being sure I am right. What source did you use? Regards, --Graham Lippiatt (talk) 17:03, 30 December 2008 (UTC)