Sorry about this but the section had become a "parody on NPOV". — Yulia Romero • Talk to me! 16:55, 11 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Parody on NPOV? What in particular? I didn't see anything, everything was cited, it was pretty basic before my recent edit...--Львівське (говорити) 17:07, 11 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I was referring to this version of the article that mentioned nothing about Vitaliy Zakharchenko statement "I want to calm everyone down: there will be no dispersal of Maidan". — Yulia Romero • Talk to me! 17:15, 11 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think a section being incomplete implies pushing a point of view or a lack of neutrality. Ends up we were both working on beefing up things once we digested the rest of the news and statements.--Львівське (говорити) 17:20, 11 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

You never know when they're going to charge, or where they're gonna come from. Overcitation in order to counter anachronistic information in online dictionaries, online EB, online answers, ad nauseum. Everything is sourced from The British Empire's "My First Encyclopaedia", 1911 edition.

Lol! I was utterly stunned at seeing certain names coming up sans histrionics. Thought you were working on both simultaneously. I'd walked into upside-down world! Oops. Have I given away the fact that I can be acerbic? --Iryna Harpy (talk) 01:57, 19 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

what was up with all of those refs? i checked them and non even mentioned white russia...--Львівське (говорити) 02:08, 19 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I'd had to slog it out with the guy who'd reversed the 'archaic' and/or 'anachronistic' term on his talk page. He was adamant that it is a current term interchangeable with Belarus as per his removal of my use of 'anachronistic' which he changed to:
"The eastern part of present-day Belarus, including the cities of Polotsk, Vitebsk, and Mogilev, is known as White Russia (alternatively White Rus' or White Ruthenia); it is situated in the historical region of Ruthenia or Rus'. The name is a translation of Belaya Rus' (Belarusian: Белая Русь, literally meaning "White Rus'"), and is sometimes used synonymously of Belarus as a whole.^[1]"

I was put in a position where I had to counter the American Heritage Dictionary that White Russia and Belarus were not one and the same thing and, to add to that, both terms for Belarus were equally valid. As he was adamant that it must be understood to be received knowledge in the English language, I did go a little overboard in order to make the point that White Russia is not used as an alternative, interchangeable name for Belarus. I did mean to go back and kill off the overcitation once I'd driven the final nail into the coffin. Let it not be said that I do anything in a half-arsed manner, although it can certainly be said that I'm getting senile and can forget to fix up mad messes I've made. Показала йому дулю, та пішла собі гулять... --Iryna Harpy (talk) 04:59, 19 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

He's kind of right, I mean, Bela Rus does mean White Rus / White Ruthenia; but not White Russia...unless you're speaking Russian (Белоруссия). So yeah, he's right....but as it says, Ruthenia is an historic term, ergot, White Ruthenia would also be an historic term. It's historic but it's also the translation of the contemporary state's name...which makes it WP:OR since it's never referred to as such in English.--Львівське (говорити) 05:21, 19 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

It was the Ruthenia/Russia issue I was debating over with him. To the best of my recollection (he wipes his talk page regularly), his wife is Russian and he was the one who believed it to be a literal translation of 'Белоруссия' (or, as I've often heard Russian speakers referring to it as, "Белороссия" in the vernacular). My only recourse was to make an issue of the English language usage of the name which is, per WP:COMMON, Belarus over White 'Russia'. It may have been merely a technicality, but he wasn't prepared to allow me to use 'anachronism' without citations for the use Belarus. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 05:45, 19 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

the two oxford ones are good enough, they say 'former' and 'dated' --Львівське (говорити) 05:50, 19 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Just don't check against any other dictionaries. I promise I won't tell if you don't. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 06:10, 19 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hey, just wondering what the evidence for this team being called soviet union is. The iihf in story 59 says they finished as CIS, and their encyclopedia awards the medal for that year to CIS. Do you have some other evidence to the contrary?.18abruce (talk) 19:30, 22 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I've opened a question on the wikiproject here --Львівське (говорити) 19:36, 22 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Good move, I had no intent of starting an argument. I think a discussion already happened once about three years ago, but I don't know if it was conclusive, and I don't mind being wrong if there is evidence for it. Additionally, there was a comment about the CCCP on the jerseys at the Junior tournament which I am curious about. I found pictures of the olympic team and the u18 team, both soviet jerseys with CCCP removed, but someone believed that happened during the u20 as well which I can find no evidence of.18abruce (talk) 19:52, 22 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

i was initially confusing both the WJC and the WC, now with the 3 sources on the WP talk...i'm legit confused. Seems the IIHF can't keep a consistent story. The Olympic team was the Unified Team so that makes sense it had alternate jerseys; what was the date range of the U18 tourney? --Львівське (говорити) 21:22, 22 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The under18 tournament was april 5-12 1992. The entry was Russia, however I have found a few hockey cards that picture the players there as having the same jersey as the unified team at the olympics (Soviet jersey with CCCP removed). The World Championship team was Russian, with a russian jersey, I have seen video to verify that. The under20 team is so confusing though, I watched the January 4th game against Canada, and cannot remember a thing about it. The upper deck set for the juniors has them all in regular soviet jerseys, but that dosen't prove it didn't change before the end. The other issue with calling the junior team CIS is that some of the players were not from countries that were ever part of the CIS (Sandis Ozolinsh and Segei Zholtok are latvian, Darius Kasparitis was Lithuanian but continued representing Russia afterward). There is an unreferenced comment on Ozolins's page that states that other nations protested their involvement, I don't know whether there is any truth to this at all.18abruce (talk) 00:18, 23 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, the naming is pretty loose (add Zhitnik to that list, Ukraine wasn't a CIS member either). Unless a Belarusian slipped in there, ironically, the "CIS" team is 1 CIS member (Russia) and several other players from non-CIS countries. --Львівське (говорити) 00:37, 23 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Lvivske: Why didn't you just delete the improper cite, rather than deleting the whole edit?! It was one in a cluster of cites; the paragraph didn't need that one cite, it had others.

I would hate to see you in a garden. You'd find a weed and bulldoze the whole place.

Added to your delusion of grandeur was your statement that this was my second improper cite [in 3 years of edits], and that you would bar me from making all future edits if it happened again!

Who are you? The new Mussolini? Svoboda's Gauleiter von Lemburg ?

The EU is looking for more nations like Greece that it can rob in order to pump up the wealth of Germany. One of the main organizers of the protests in Ukraine besides the CIA and OTPOR is Svoboda, a neo-nazi political party which has close relations with the Christian Democrats and Angela Merkel. They basically want Germany to take over and colonize Ukraine.

RSVP

As I've said, the entire piece was mess ridden with original research, unencyclopedic tone, and a lack of sources. It was an essay, a ranting, raving blog draft you posted in the middle of a good article. It had no place on Wiki so it was removed. The citation you're referencing was only 1 of the comments I've left, take note of the others and what other editors have said to you so far. There is a reason why every single one of your edits has been reverted on any article you've tried to touch. There seems to be a massive disconnect on how to conduct yourself with civility and what wikipedia is.

Yes. I'm the new Mussolini von Lemburg.--Львівське (говорити) 07:28, 27 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

As an active member of the WikiProject Ice Hockey, you should be aware that there has been a discussion at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Ice Hockey/League assessment concerning how NHOCKEY will be interpreted. Dolovis (talk) 14:30, 2 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Lvivske, I see that in the article on Svoboda, the extreme-right party in Ukraine, you made two edits that ignored available sources and attempted to hide the historical relationship between Svoboda and the extreme right.

Specifically, your first edit removed sourced information on Svoboda's relationship with "Ukraine's Patriot," a paramilitary group, explaining in your edit summary that the two now have no association. You not only ignored the source in making this edit, but didn't provide another to back up your assertion.

Your second edit removed information on the use of the Wolfsangel rune by neo-nazi organizations in Europe, claiming in your edit summary that this information violated WP:SYN. You should read the WP:SYN rules, and the source you ignored in removing this content, which is an article about Svoboda, and makes the same point exactly. In fact, the language you removed was so similar to the original source, it could almost be called plagiarism.

This kind of editing on your part is harmful to the encyclopedia. If you have valuable content to add about Svoboda please do so, but don't remove important information from reliable sources that you don't want to appear while incorrectly invoking Wikipedia's policies. -Darouet (talk) 04:32, 3 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Your accusations of bad faith editing are in poor taste. --Львівське (говорити) 05:15, 3 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

You can't engage in disruptive editing and complain, after, about accusations of bad faith. Thanks for correcting the article though. -Darouet (talk) 06:36, 3 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sorry, I should have written "what could be easily construed as disruptive editing." I do appreciate that you added more information afterwards. -Darouet (talk) 06:50, 3 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• This person declared himself (on his user page) as a supporter of Svoboda. Therefore, he is not neutral editor.--96.241.218.72 (talk) 02:46, 18 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Львівське, I see that in this edit, you added a qualification that changes the quoted text from the reference you very helpfully contributed. The result is that the "quote" now contains text not in the book it is meant to cite. I hope you won't mind that I remove it: the quote section of a citation should contain an exact copy of some portion of the reference cited.

That said, I think it could be worthwhile to add more of the material from this source that you found into the article. If we decide to do that, maybe we could add a qualifier as you've suggested? In that case it'd be goo to provide a reference for the qualification. -Darouet (talk) 20:07, 7 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

whoops, I thought that was a paraphrased section of the text so I just added the 'qualification' line from info that was also on that page. Didn't mean to alter a direct quote. --Львівське (говорити) 20:09, 7 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Because the text you added came from an earlier place on the page, perhaps you'd consider adding the same text by just expanding the quote at the top? If you don't have access to the full book I think I could find it at the library in the next few days. -Darouet (talk) 20:11, 7 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

i posted the direct quote on the talk page so you know what I was taking from him. Not sure how to work it in now, will look the page over later if you don't get to it. --Львівське (говорити) 20:15, 7 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]